Texas Voucher Rollout Raises Barriers for Students With Disabilities

By Isabel Neumann

Reporting Texas

When one Austin parent began researching private schools after Texas introduced its new voucher program, the parent expected more options for their child with disabilities. But many schools, including some that specialize in autism, would not accept students with emotional or behavioral needs.

“I spent hours searching private and microschools in the Austin area,” the parent said. “Every single school I looked at … clearly stated they do not accept children with emotional and behavioral disabilities. For that reason, I see no reason to apply.”

The parent, who asked not to be identified to protect the child’s privacy, said the lack of available options made the program feel out of reach, highlighting a barrier that goes beyond accessing funding to whether families can use it at all.

When Texas opened applications for its new school voucher program, families of students with disabilities were eligible for additional funding to help their children go to private school. But for some, the timeline to qualify had already run out. 

“Some people didn’t know they were already four days short,” said Linda Litzinger, leadership and advocacy director at Texas Parent to Parent, a nonprofit that provides support and resources to families of children with disabilities.

As the state prepares to launch the $1 billion program for the 2026-27 school year, early experiences suggest that students with disabilities, who are given priority consideration and eligible for higher funding, may actually face some of the steepest barriers to entry. Under the program’s structure, applicants are grouped into categories, with the lowest-income families prioritized first, followed by students with disabilities. The Texas comptroller’s office, which administers the program, distributes funds in order of priority until available funding is exhausted.

Advocates say a combination of tight timelines, complex eligibility rules and funding restrictions could limit who is able to benefit, raising questions about whether the program actually expands access to private schools. 

The state’s Education Freedom Accounts program, approved by the Legislature in 2025 after years of debate, is designed to expand access to private schools by giving families public funds to spend on private school tuition, therapies and other educational services. According to a February presentation from the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts to the Governor’s Committee on People with Disabilities, students with disabilities are given priority consideration and are eligible for higher funding, up to roughly $30,000, intended to support specialized needs.

But early experiences from families and advocates suggest that accessing those benefits may be more complicated in practice. 

To qualify for the additional funding, students must have a current Individualized Education Program, or IEP, issued through a public school. Existing IEPs can be used if they are up to date, meaning the underlying evaluation is less than 3 years old and the IEP has been updated within the past year. Families without current documentation, however, must obtain a new evaluation through a public school. 

By law, school districts have up to 45 school days to complete an evaluation. When the application window opened, however, families effectively had fewer school days than that to meet the requirement.

“You don’t always just sit down and apply the day something opens,” Litzinger said. “It’s been a little bit of trouble for families to learn about it and access it.”

That mismatch forced many families to rush to secure evaluations from public school districts, which were already managing existing caseloads. In some cases, parents were unaware of the timeline constraints or the specific documentation required until it was too late.

As a result, some families may have submitted applications without updated evaluations, making them eligible only for base-level funding, roughly $10,000, instead of the higher amount intended for students with disabilities.

That additional funding can bring total awards to roughly $30,000, but the exact amount varies. According to advocates, funding for students with disabilities is tied to services recorded in the state’s Public Education Information Management System rather than solely what is outlined in a student’s IEP. Because PEIMS funding is based in part on classroom placement, some students who receive significant support in general education settings may still be assigned lower funding levels.

“Some students who need a lot of support may not see that reflected in their funding,” Litzinger said.

Litzinger pointed to program language she said could lock in funding levels over time. “There’s also language that we’ve got to  get fixed that says what you get the first year is what you’re going to get every year,” she said.

Advocates say the structure of the program places a significant burden on families to navigate complex requirements within tight deadlines. Missing a step, even by a matter of days, can mean losing access to thousands of dollars in support.

“There are a lot of structural barriers built into the program that could limit access, especially for the families it’s meant to help most,” said Inga Cotton, a lobbyist and education policy analyst with Texans for Public Education.

Cotton said families are not only trying to understand a new and complicated application system, but are also required to coordinate with public school districts to obtain evaluations, something that can be difficult even under normal circumstances.

“It’s not always clear to families what steps they need to take or how long those steps will take,” Cotton said. “That uncertainty can become a barrier in itself.”

The requirement for public school evaluations has also raised concerns about strain on local districts. 

“Public schools are being asked to conduct evaluations for students who may not even remain in the public system,” said Steve Aleman, policy specialist at Disability Rights Texas. “That creates both logistical challenges and fairness concerns.”

Aleman added that private schools, where voucher funds can be used, are not held to the same federal requirements as public schools when it comes to providing special education services. As a result, families may receive funding but still face limitations in the level of support available to their child.

Litzinger said the rollout has increased demand for evaluations, as families rush to meet eligibility requirements through public school systems already facing backlogs.

Beyond evaluation delays, some program rules may further limit access for students with more complex needs. The comptroller’s guidelines cap spending on technology at 10% of a student’s total award, a restriction advocates say does not reflect the realities of special education.

“When you’re a regular kid, 10% might cover a laptop,” Litzinger said. “But for students with disabilities, the equipment they need is often much more complex and much more expensive.”

Assistive communication devices, adaptive software and ability equipment can cost thousands of dollars, sometimes exceeding the program’s cap entirely.

“If you need something that’s $8,000, you may only be allowed to spend $1,800,” she said. ”So you can’t have it.”

Some families face additional barriers depending on their circumstances. Military families moving between states, for example, may have existing evaluations that do not meet Texas requirements, forcing them to restart the process within a limited timeframe.

“We have military families coming from everywhere,” Litzinger said. “They may have an IEP that was done a year ago, but it doesn’t fit what Texas wants.”

While the program was pitched by state leaders as a way to expand educational opportunity, particularly for students with specialized needs, advocates say access in practice may depend less on eligibility and more on a family’s ability to navigate the system.

“This program was supposed to help kids with special needs,” Litzinger said. “But it went by economics first, and then disability. They are practically being bypassed in how the program is structured.”

As the program moves closer to full implementation, questions remain about whether those barriers will be addressed, or whether some of the students it aims to serve will be left behind.

“There’s a difference between a program existing and a program being truly accessible,” Cotton said.