EDUC SAVINGS ACCOUNT PROGRAM
HB2820 creates the Illinois Education Savings Account Act and directs the State Board of Education, subject to appropriation, to establish and administer an education savings account (ESA) program for eligible resident pupils attending nonpublic schools. The bill defines “qualified educational expenses” broadly to include private school tuition and fees, tutoring and other educational therapies, curriculum and software, online education, vocational and life skills education, disability-related services, standardized test fees, and certain college entrance or placement exams. It also requires that ESA funds be used first for tuition and fees owed to the pupil’s nonpublic school before other eligible expenses.
The program would phase in eligibility over several school years. For 2025-26, eligibility would include kindergarteners, new private-school students in grades 1-12, and returning private-school students in households at or below 300% of federal poverty guidelines; for 2026-27, the income threshold for returning private-school students rises to 400% and prior recipients remain eligible; and beginning in 2027-28, all resident pupils eligible for K-12 who attend nonpublic schools would be eligible. Parents or guardians would apply annually, the State Board or a third party would create individual accounts and deposit funds, unused balances could roll over while the student remains in the program, and remaining funds would revert to the General Revenue Fund when the student graduates or turns 20. Participants must take applicable state and federal assessments, and the State Board may adopt implementing rules.
If enacted, HB2820 would create a new state-run ESA program and add a new statutory framework governing eligibility, applications, account administration, allowable expenses, testing, and fund rollover/reversion. It would affect the State Board of Education, participating families, nonpublic schools, and providers of educational services by allowing state funds to be used for private education-related costs. Because the bill is subject to appropriation, implementation would depend on legislative funding, and it would likely have budgetary implications for the General Revenue Fund and education appropriations.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a school-choice expansion that would likely appeal to supporters of parental control and private-school access, while also imposing accountability measures such as annual applications, restricted uses of funds, and required testing.
The main points of contention are likely to be the use of public funds for nonpublic education, the scope of eligibility, and the fiscal impact on the state. Supporters would likely favor the phased expansion of eligibility and the broad list of covered educational expenses, especially for families seeking alternatives to public schools or services for students with disabilities. Opponents would likely focus on whether the program diverts resources from public education, whether the income thresholds and eventual universal eligibility are too expansive, and whether the program should be funded at all given the bill’s dependence on appropriations.