EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNT PROG
HB2611 creates the Illinois Education Savings Account Act and directs the State Board of Education to establish an Education Savings Account Program beginning with the fall 2026 semester. The program would provide grants to eligible students—generally K-12 students who were eligible for public school in the prior semester or are entering Illinois schools for the first time, and whose household income is at or below 2.5 times the free/reduced-price lunch threshold. To participate, a parent must sign an agreement to provide instruction in core subjects and to keep the student out of a district or charter school while using the account for approved educational expenses.
The bill allows ESA funds to be used for private school tuition and fees, tutoring, curriculum, online learning, testing, 529 contributions, disability-related educational services, and tuition and books at eligible postsecondary institutions. Grant amounts are tied to the State aid that would otherwise go to the student’s resident district, with a sliding scale based on household income: full funding for the lowest-income eligible students, then 75%, 50%, or 25% for higher income bands up to the eligibility cap. The State Board would administer the program, approve financial managers, conduct audits, and may refer misuse to law enforcement. Participating schools must meet basic health, safety, nondiscrimination, and recordkeeping requirements, but the bill also limits state regulation of their educational programs.
HB2611 would create a new state education funding mechanism outside the traditional public school system by redirecting some State aid from a student’s resident school district into a privately managed account for use on approved educational services. It would amend the practical operation of the School Code’s state aid formula by subtracting ESA grant amounts from aid otherwise payable to districts, while still counting participating students in district enrollment figures for aid calculations. The bill would also impose new administrative duties on the State Board of Education, new reporting and auditing requirements, and new obligations on resident districts to provide student records.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to appeal to supporters of school choice and education flexibility, especially for lower- and middle-income families. At the same time, its structure suggests it would likely draw scrutiny from those concerned about diversion of funds from public schools, oversight of private providers, and the state’s role in regulating nonpublic education.
The main points of contention are likely to be school choice versus public school funding, and accountability versus private-school autonomy. Supporters would likely emphasize expanded educational options, especially for families with limited income, while critics may object that the bill shifts state aid away from resident districts and into private accounts. Another likely dispute is the extent of regulation: the bill requires testing, audits, and basic safety standards, but also states that participating schools are autonomous and that the state may not regulate their educational programs beyond program requirements. Questions may also arise about eligibility thresholds, the use of public funds for private and postsecondary expenses, and the administrative burden on the State Board and school districts.