Key Points:

• ESA Handbook approved by state board after lengthy deliberation 

• Controversial price caps exchanged for evaluation framework

• Department, lawmakers and parents failed to find consensus  

After months of meetings and pages of public comment, the State Board of Education signed off on the annual Empowerment Scholarship Account Handbook at a meeting on June 23.

Approval did not come without lingering doubts from a sect of parents and a coalition of lawmakers as the Arizona Department of Education made some, but not every, concession in the final draft. 

Though this year’s handbook made it through, conversations around the handbook, the ESA program and the department’s role may return in the Legislature amid lingering concerns from lawmakers. 

“The ESA Handbook should be in alignment with state statute, and there’s some concerns about what has been said and what’s been done,” Rep. Lisa Fink, R-Glendale, said.  

Deliberation over the annual policy manual and guidebook for ESA accountholders started in October with the convening of an ESA Parent Handbook committee. 

The committee forwarded a draft in December, which was then tinkered with by the state Department of Education and eventually presented to the State Board and the public in March. 

The first attempt caught immediate flak for the inclusion of price limits. 

Under the initial draft handbook, ESA accountholders would be barred from spending more than $2,000 on personal laptops and computers, $4,000 on instruments, $2,500 on physical education equipment, $2,500 on a playground, $3,000 on a SmartBoard, $1,500 on tools for vocational education and $500 annually on home economic equipment.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne said the limits aligned with the department’s responsibility to ensure purchases in the program are both educational and reasonably priced. 

Those opposed to the price limits claimed the department overstepped its authority and contended the policy could stand to impact home-schooling students and students with disabilities by denying purchases prudent to education. 

The second draft, published in April, was not much different. Instead of using “limits,” the department opted for “coverage amounts,” and made it clearer that students with disabilities could seek an exemption from price caps with a note from a doctor. 

The change did little to alleviate concerns from ESA accountholders, and prompted a call to action for legislators. That led Horne and the state board to delay consideration of a draft handbook to June as the department negotiated with lawmakers and sought more parent input. 

By the time the meeting came around, ESA Director John Ward said the department, lawmakers and parents had failed to reach total consensus throughout meetings and negotiations. 

“Are we all in 100% agreement on it? No,” Ward said. “But we’re certainly a lot closer than we were a couple of months ago.” 

Ward said the department addressed the “most notorious issue” — spending caps — by trading in price caps for a framework the department can use to assess purchases.

The latest handbook uses a three-point process for approving purchases: a review of the specific circumstances and educational needs of the student; a check on whether the department has previously approved the item; and an assessment of whether the cost and quantity of the item meet educational needs when weighed against other available alternatives. 

The department also added a provision allowing certified special education teachers to provide notes to support purchases for students with disabilities.

Parents who spoke in opposition to the handbook claimed the language introduced new uncertainty to the process. 

Lawmakers still had their problems with the draft, too, and sent a letter on the morning of June 23 claiming an “outpouring of constituent concern regarding the legality” of the handbook. 

The 11 representatives and three Senators who signed on claimed they did not have a full opportunity to review the handbook. 

They flagged one provision requiring additional documentation for purchases, and another allowing for changes to best practices as “very likely unlawful and unenforceable because they are unintelligible, arbitrary and inconsistent with state law.” 

The lawmakers claimed the department’s role is to ensure compliance with statute and established rules, “not creating or modifying rules at will.” 

Board members pressed Ward on the questions of legality raised by legislators, a schism Ward attributed to philosophical differences. 

He said some lawmakers and parents are of the opinion that the only limitation on purchases should be the amount of money deposited in the account. Ward maintained the department’s power and fiduciary responsibility to ensure purchases are a legitimate expense of taxpayer dollars. 

Board President Katherine Haley inquired about the new process for determining allowable items and raised questions about how the department planned to maintain an objective standard and whether it had considered a delineated list of allowable and disallowable items, as required by state law. 

Ward said the framework was about as close as they could get to clarity. 

“Parents have the ability to engage in and shop in a massive open market,” Ward said.

She added that the creation of any exhaustive list would be “impossible” and a “fool’s errand.”

“The idea that we would ever have this very objective checklist that we used to go through to say something is allowable or not is probably just never going to happen in the education freedom space,” Ward said. “What might be allowable and approvable for one student may not be allowable and approvable for another student.” 

The board was then tasked with either approving the handbook as is, or rejecting it and maintaining the current version, last approved in 2023, or sending the department back to the drawing board. 

In the end, the board approved the ESA handbook 8-1, with Haley voting no.

Board member Daniel Corr told Ward to “prove your critics wrong.” 

“Parents, we have heard you. Hard caps have been removed. Concessions have been made. Negotiations have occurred. Yes, ambiguity still exists,” Corr said. “We have a choice to trust, empower and hold accountable the department, or we can go to our worst fears and believe that cannot be done, and it will be discriminatory or not effective. I’m going to choose the former.” 

The 2025-2026 ESA Handbook will take effect on July 1. 

This story was updated on June 27, 2025.