Examining the Potential Impact of Texas House Bill 3 on Educational Equity

K-12 School System.

Introduction

Texas House Bill 3 (HB 3), introduced in February 2025, proposes significant changes to the state's school funding formula through the implementation of Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). This policy initiative has sparked considerable debate, particularly concerning its potential effects on educational equity, especially when viewed through the lens of historical discriminatory practices such as redlining.

Key Provisions of House Bill 3 and Related Legislation

HB 3 allocates approximately $1 billion to fund Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), enabling an estimated 100,000 students to use state funds for private school tuition and other approved educational expenses. These ESAs would provide students with funding equivalent to 85% of the per-student allocation received by public schools through state and local sources. House Bill 2 (HB 2), a companion bill, proposes an increase in the base funding for public schools from $6,160 to $6,380 per student, representing a $220 per-pupil increase.

Historical Context: Redlining and Educational Disparities

Redlining, a discriminatory practice prevalent in the 20th century, involved the systematic denial of financial services to residents of specific neighborhoods based on their racial or ethnic composition. This practice resulted in substantial disinvestment in communities predominantly inhabited by Black and Brown individuals. The legacy of redlining continues to impact educational funding, with schools in historically redlined areas often experiencing significant funding disparities compared to those in more affluent neighborhoods. Research indicates that schools in historically redlined zones spend, on average, approximately $2,500 less per pupil than schools in well funded areas. The reliance on local property taxes for school funding exacerbates these disparities, as communities with lower property values generate less revenue for their schools.

Analyzing the Potential Implications of HB 3

Proponents' Perspective:

Advocates of HB 3 argue that ESAs empower families, particularly those in underfunded districts, to choose alternative educational options. They suggest that this policy can mitigate the long-term effects of redlining by providing access to better-resourced educational environments.

Critics' Concerns:

Critics express concern that diverting public funds to private institutions may further strain the resources of already underfunded public schools. Given that these schools predominantly serve Black and Brown students, there is a risk that HB 3 could exacerbate existing educational inequities. The $220 per student increase provided by HB 2 may be insufficient to counteract the deep rooted funding inequalities.

Recommendations for Further Research and Analysis:

• Conduct empirical studies to assess the potential impact of HB 3 on student outcomes and school funding equity.

• Analyze the distribution of ESAs and their utilization across different demographic groups and geographic regions.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed increase in base funding for public schools in addressing existing funding disparities.

• Further research into the precise demographic breakdowns of the students that are most likely to use the ESA's is needed.

Understanding the historical context of redlining and its enduring effects on educational funding is essential for evaluating the potential impact of policies such as HB 3. Continued research and analysis are crucial for developing informed policy recommendations that promote educational equity for all students.

Here are some accessible resources to continue following the discussion HB3 and related bills:

The Texas Tribune: For comprehensive coverage of HB 3 and related legislative developments.

Texas Appleseed Foundation: For in-depth analysis of the historical impact of redlining on Texas schools.

Center for American Progress and Urban Institute: For insights into the ongoing influence of historical housing policies on educational inequities.