Mississippi ESA Program

# A Targeted Intervention: A Comprehensive Analysis of Mississippi's Education Scholarship Account Program

Section I: The Architectural Evolution of Mississippi's ESA Program

Mississippi's approach to Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) presents a stark contrast to the universal, market-driven models that have emerged in states like Arizona. The program's history is not one of rapid expansion but of deliberate constraint, legislative caution, and incremental adjustment. Its architecture, shaped by a unique feedback loop involving a powerful legislative oversight body, has resulted in a small-scale, highly targeted intervention exclusively for students with disabilities. Understanding this evolution is essential to comprehending the program's current scale, its persistent challenges with unmet demand, and its distinct place in the national school choice landscape.

The Genesis (2015): A Targeted Pilot Program

The "Equal Opportunity for Students with Special Needs Act," enacted as Senate Bill 2695 in 2015, established Mississippi's ESA program.1 From its inception, the program was designed not as a paradigm-shifting reform but as a limited pilot initiative.3 This legislative framing signaled a cautious, "wait-and-see" approach to private school choice. The initial eligibility criteria were narrowly defined: a student must have had an active Individualized Education Program (IEP) within the preceding 18 months, cementing the program's exclusive focus on a specific, high-need population.1

The pilot structure included a phased-in enrollment cap, limiting participation to 500 students in the first year with the potential to add 500 new students each subsequent year for five years.6 This statutory constraint underscores the legislative intent to create a manageable and contained program, avoiding the fiscal and administrative uncertainties associated with large-scale or universal eligibility.

Legislative Refinements and the Influence of PEER Reviews

The program's evolution has been significantly influenced by the state's Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER), a non-partisan oversight body tasked with auditing state programs.8 Unlike states where the policy debate is primarily driven by competing think tanks and advocacy groups, Mississippi has an institutionalized feedback mechanism where formal legislative review directly shapes statutory changes.

A critical series of amendments passed in 2020 (Senate Bill 2594\) were a direct legislative response to findings and critiques from PEER reports.1 These amendments adjusted the eligibility window for having an active IEP, eventually settling on a three-year lookback period. More significantly, the 2020 law added a crucial accountability measure: for the first time, participating private schools were required to provide special education services to enrolled ESA students.1 This change addressed a major flaw identified in early program reviews, where public funds were being used for private tuition without a guarantee that the students' special needs were being met. This direct link between PEER's findings and legislative action demonstrates a structured and data-informed policy refinement process that is a defining characteristic of the Mississippi model.

Core Administrative Framework

The Mississippi Department of Education (MDE), through its Office of Special Education, is the designated administering agency for the ESA program.2 The administrative framework is built upon a contractual agreement between the state and the participating family. To be eligible, a parent or guardian must sign a detailed agreement promising to provide an organized educational program in core subjects (reading, grammar, mathematics, social studies, and science) and, critically, to release the student's home school district from all obligations to educate the child.4 This formal withdrawal underscores the program's function as an explicit exit from the public education system.

Furthermore, the program's design prevents "double-dipping" into state scholarship funds. The statute explicitly prohibits a student from simultaneously participating in the ESA program and other state-funded scholarships, such as the Dyslexia Therapy Scholarship or the Nate Rogers Speech-Language Therapy Scholarship.12 This provision reinforces the program's role as a singular, alternative pathway for a defined set of students.

The resulting program is a product of political compromise and legislative caution rather than pure free-market ideology. Its history shows a consistent pattern of incrementalism and risk mitigation, creating a small, stable, and highly regulated intervention rather than a disruptive force in the state's K-12 education system.

Table 1: Mississippi ESA Program \- Core Architectural Features

Section II: Financial Architecture and Program Scale

The financial architecture of Mississippi's ESA program is a key element of its design, deliberately structured to contain its fiscal footprint and insulate the state's primary K-12 education budget from its costs. This section analyzes the program's unique funding mechanism, its award calculation formula, its administrative payment model, and the inherent tensions that arise from these structural choices.

Funding Mechanism: Direct Appropriation as a Containment Strategy

Unlike programs funded through a state's per-pupil education formula, Mississippi's ESA is funded by a direct, annual appropriation from the state's General Fund.7 The enabling statute explicitly states that no funds for an ESA may be expended from the Mississippi Adequate Education Program (MAEP), the state's K-12 funding formula.6 This structural choice creates a powerful firewall, preventing the program from having an unpredictable or escalating impact on the overall education budget. The program's cost is a simple, transparent, and controllable line item in the state budget.

For many years, the annual appropriation was held static at $3 million.12 This fixed budget, however, created a persistent gap between the demand for the program and the number of available slots, resulting in a long waitlist. In response to targeted advocacy campaigns highlighting the stories of these waitlisted families, the legislature increased the program's budget to $5 million in June 2025, a significant development intended to clear the existing backlog of applicants.17 This demonstrates that while the funding structure is designed for containment, it is not immune to political pressure for incremental expansion.

Award Calculation and Value

The original 2015 statute set the per-student award value at $6,500 for the 2015-2016 school year.6 The law further dictates that this amount should increase or decrease annually in the same proportion as the state's base student cost under the MAEP formula.7 This creates a statutory expectation that the scholarship's value will keep pace with public school funding.

However, a fundamental tension exists between this formula and the reality of a capped budget. The MDE has acknowledged that in some years it has been unable to increase the award amount in accordance with the law because the fixed legislative appropriation was insufficient to fund all existing participants at a higher rate.8 The per-pupil award amount is therefore a function of both the statutory formula and the total funds available. The value has fluctuated annually, rising from $6,500 in FY 2016 to $7,089 in FY 2024, $7,829 in FY 2025, and a projected $8,007 for FY 2026\.7

Administrative Model: The Reimbursement System as a Socioeconomic Filter

Mississippi's program administration differs markedly from states that use third-party financial platforms. It operates on a strict reimbursement model, which places a significant financial burden on participating families.9 Parents are required to pay for all approved educational expenses—such as private school tuition, therapy, or tutoring—out-of-pocket first. They must then submit itemized receipts and a reimbursement request form to the MDE to be repaid.9

These reimbursements are processed quarterly. The state's administrative rules explicitly prohibit lump-sum payments. Even if a parent pays a full year of private school tuition upfront, they will only receive the state reimbursement in four equal installments over the course of the school year.10 This administrative design, while fiscally prudent from the state's perspective, inherently functions as a socioeconomic filter. It favors families with the liquidity and cash flow to front thousands of dollars in educational costs for months at a time, creating a substantial barrier to entry for many low- and middle-income families who may otherwise be eligible.

Table 2: Program Scale and Award Value Trajectory (FY2016-FY2026)

Section III: Enrollment Dynamics and Program Utilization

The enrollment patterns of Mississippi's ESA program tell a story of high demand constrained by a rigid financial structure. The interplay between statutory enrollment allowances, the reality of a budget-based cap, and the resulting waitlist reveals the central tension of the program's design. Analysis of where participants are coming from further illuminates the program's concentrated impact on the state's public school landscape.

Enrollment Caps: Statutory vs. Reality

The original 2015 statute authorized an ambitious growth trajectory, allowing for 500 new students to enroll each year.6 In theory, this would have allowed the program to serve up to 2,500 students by its fifth year. In practice, the program has never approached this statutory capacity. The effective enrollment cap is not determined by the statute but by the fixed annual budget appropriation. Each year, the MDE must calculate the actual number of available ESA slots by dividing the net appropriation (after administrative costs) by the calculated per-pupil award amount for that year.23

This reality was evident from the program's outset. In its first year (FY 2016), enrollment reached 251 students.20 By the second year, demand had surged, and the program hit its budget-limited capacity of 425 students, forcing the state to use a lottery and creating a waitlist of over 125 families.20 Since then, annual participation has remained in a relatively narrow band. The 2024 PEER report noted a combined 515 unique participants across FY 2023 and FY 2024, and data from EdChoice shows 345 participating students in the 2024-2025 school year.15

The Waitlist: A Measure of Unmet Demand and a Political Barometer

The persistent waitlist has become a defining feature of the program and its primary political flashpoint. It serves as a concrete, quantifiable measure of unmet demand for educational alternatives among families of children with special needs. In October 2022, the PEER Committee reported that 127 students were on the waitlist.21 This administrative backlog is more than a queue; it is a potent political tool. Advocacy organizations have effectively leveraged the stories of these waitlisted families to create a compelling narrative of denied opportunity, exemplified by campaigns such as Empower Mississippi's "\#Waitlisted" initiative.17

This targeted advocacy created the political pressure that led directly to the legislature's 2025 decision to increase the program's budget by $2 million, with the explicit goal of clearing the waitlist.17 This dynamic reveals that while the program's financial structure is designed for containment, the waitlist it creates serves as a political barometer that can force incremental expansion. To even be placed on the waitlist, a family must certify that their child has already been accepted into a qualifying private school, indicating a high level of motivation and commitment from these families and making their case for inclusion even more compelling to legislators.18

The "Switcher" Analysis: A Concentrated Exit from Public Schools

By its very design, the Mississippi ESA program has a "switcher rate" of 100%. A core requirement for participation is that the parent agrees to withdraw their child from the public school system.2 Therefore, every participant is, by definition, a "switcher" who is leaving a public school (or forgoing enrollment in one) to use the ESA.

The more salient analysis, however, examines which public school districts these students are leaving. Data from the 2022 PEER report reveals that while ESA participants come from a wide range of districts across the state (73 districts in FY 2021 and 68 in FY 2022), the departures are highly concentrated in a small number of primarily suburban districts.22 In both fiscal years, just five school districts accounted for nearly 40% of all students leaving public schools to use an ESA. The districts with the highest number of departures were Rankin County, Madison County, DeSoto County, Jackson Public, and Harrison County.22

This geographic concentration suggests that the program is not equally accessible to all eligible families across Mississippi. It is likely a third-order effect of the state's geography of opportunity, reflecting the intersection of where private schools are located, where families have the financial means to navigate the program's reimbursement-based model, and where information about the program is most prevalent. The result is a program that, while legally available statewide, is disproportionately utilized by families in a few specific, more affluent suburban corridors.

Table 3: Top Public School Districts by ESA "Switcher" Departures (FY2021-FY2022)

Section IV: The Participant Profile: A Focus on Special Needs

The identity of Mississippi's ESA program is inextricably linked to the population it serves: students with disabilities. Unlike universal programs with diverse participant pools, Mississippi's targeted eligibility creates a more uniform user base. Analysis of this profile, drawing on available state data, reveals key information about the types of disabilities served, the high degree of satisfaction among families, and how the funds are ultimately used.

Participant Demographics

The most detailed demographic data available comes from the 2022 PEER report, which provides a breakdown of participants by disability type.22 This data shows a wide range of disabilities represented in the program, with notable concentrations in categories such as Autism, Language/Speech Impairment, and Intellectual Disability. A critical finding from recent PEER analysis is that the percentage of participating students with permanent disabilities has risen to 53%.8 This has significant long-term implications for the program, as these students are likely to remain enrolled until high school graduation, reducing the number of new slots that become available each year through natural attrition.

A significant data gap exists, however, as the Mississippi Department of Education does not appear to publicly report anonymized data on the race, ethnicity, or household income of ESA participants. This absence of official socioeconomic data makes it difficult to fully assess the program's equity and reach across different demographic groups, a challenge common to many school choice programs nationally.

Parent and Student Satisfaction: An Overwhelmingly Positive Response

One of the most consistent and powerful findings across multiple evaluations of the program is the exceptionally high level of satisfaction among participating families. This qualitative data point is central to the program's political narrative and durability. The 2024 PEER report found "high levels of satisfaction with the program by both parents and students" and noted that parents believe their children have shown significant progress in achieving both academic and disability-related goals since enrolling.15

This finding echoes earlier survey data. An analysis conducted by Empower Mississippi found that over 90% of participating parents expressed satisfaction with the ESA program.20 This stands in stark contrast to their reported satisfaction with their child's prior educational setting, where fewer than 30% of the same parents reported being satisfied.20 This dramatic shift in satisfaction provides strong evidence that the program is meeting a real and deeply felt need for this specific population, offering them educational environments they perceive as being far superior to their previous options. This high satisfaction rate acts as a powerful political shield, making it difficult for opponents to advocate for the program's reduction or elimination based on fiscal or administrative critiques alone.

Allowable Expenses and Spending Patterns: A Voucher in ESA Clothing?

The legal structure of the ESA provides families with significant flexibility. The list of allowable expenses is broad, including private school tuition and fees, textbooks, curriculum, private tutoring, educational therapies from licensed providers, testing fees, dual enrollment courses, and certain technological devices verified as essential for the student's education.9

Despite this legal flexibility, actual spending patterns are highly concentrated. The 2024 PEER report found that, on average, participants used 96% of their ESA funds on private school tuition.15 This suggests that, in practice, the Mississippi ESA program functions more like a traditional school voucher than a true "Education Savings Account." Families are overwhelmingly using the funds to access a single private institution rather than to "unbundle" services and create a customized educational program from multiple providers. This phenomenon may be driven by several factors, including an award amount that is often just sufficient to cover tuition, a reimbursement model that makes managing multiple small expenses cumbersome, or a limited market of non-school educational service providers in many parts of the state. This finding challenges the broad narrative that ESAs are inherently different from vouchers; their practical application is heavily dependent on specific program design and local market conditions.

Section V: The Fiscal Impact: A Contained but Contentious Debate

The fiscal debate surrounding Mississippi's ESA program is markedly different from the billion-dollar controversies seen in states with universal programs. Due to its small scale and unique funding mechanism, the program's financial impact is contained. This has shifted the debate away from arguments over net costs versus net savings and toward a more philosophical dispute about spending priorities and the principle of using public funds for private education.

Gross Program Cost and Fund Utilization

The program's gross cost is defined by its annual legislative appropriation from the General Fund. For most of its existence, this was a static $3 million per year.15 For fiscal year 2026, this was increased to $5 million to address the program's waitlist.17 By statute, the MDE is permitted to deduct up to 6% of the total appropriation to cover the costs of administration and oversight.23

Analysis by the PEER Committee shows that the program does not always expend its full appropriation. In the two-year period covering FY 2023 and FY 2024, MDE disbursed 90% of available funds, with 10% ($557,604) lapsing and being returned to the state treasury.15 This indicates that while demand is high enough to create a waitlist, administrative frictions or families not claiming their full award can lead to underspending relative to the total budget.

The PEER Committee Net Cost Model

The most authoritative analysis of the program's net fiscal impact comes from the Legislature's own PEER Committee. The committee uses a straightforward and transparent formula to calculate the program's cost to the state:

$Net Cost \= Total ESA Program Disbursements \- MAEP Funding Reduction for Departing Students$ 8

This model accounts for both the new spending on the ESA scholarships and the savings generated when participating students leave the public school system, which no longer receives state MAEP funding for them. Applying this formula, the 2024 PEER report calculated the net cost increase to the state as approximately $1.2 million for FY 2023 and $1.3 million for FY 2024.15

Crucially, the PEER report concludes that the fiscal impact on the public school districts from which these students depart was "immaterial".15 This finding is a direct consequence of the program's small size and its funding structure outside of the main K-12 formula. It effectively neutralizes the argument that the ESA program is defunding or financially harming public schools.

The Competing Narrative: An Argument of Principle and Opportunity Cost

With the PEER Committee's data showing an immaterial impact on school districts, the primary argument from program critics shifts from one of direct financial harm to one of principle and opportunity cost. This perspective focuses less on the specific net-cost calculation and more on the broader context of state education funding.1

Critics argue that any new state spending on private education is inappropriate when public schools—and specifically, special education programs within those schools—remain chronically underfunded.1 For example, one analysis noted that in the 2021-2022 school year alone, special education in public schools was underfunded by $36 million.1 From this viewpoint, the ESA program's \~$1.3 million annual net cost is not a negligible figure but a diversion of scarce resources that could have been used to improve services for the tens of thousands of special needs students who remain in the public system. The debate is therefore not about whether the program is driving the state toward a deficit, but whether it represents the correct prioritization of limited public dollars.

Table 4: Net Fiscal Impact Calculation (PEER Committee Model, FY2023-FY2024)

Section VI: Administration and Accountability: The PEER Review

The administration and oversight of Mississippi's ESA program are subject to intense and regular scrutiny from the Legislature's PEER Committee. The committee's biennial reports function as a de facto performance audit of the Mississippi Department of Education's management of the program, providing a detailed record of both persistent challenges and recent improvements in accountability.

MDE Administrative Performance

The PEER Committee's longitudinal reviews have documented a clear evolution in MDE's administrative capacity. Early reports were highly critical, citing significant shortcomings such as MDE's failure to enforce the statutory requirement that participants be recertified every three years and long delays in developing a promised online portal for parents to submit documents and streamline the reimbursement process.22

However, the 2024 PEER report indicates that MDE has made notable progress in addressing these issues. The department is now meeting the three-year recertification requirement, which helps ensure that only currently eligible students remain in the program.15 Furthermore, parent satisfaction with MDE's customer service has improved, suggesting better communication and responsiveness from program staff.15

Despite these improvements, oversight gaps remain. The 2024 PEER report found that MDE has not consistently required all participating private schools to submit a signed assurance form attesting that they meet all statutory requirements.15 This lapse in basic compliance documentation represents a significant weakness in the program's accountability framework.

Accountability for Schools and Parents

The program's accountability structure relies on a set of legal obligations for both parents and participating schools. Parents must sign a legally binding agreement to abide by all program rules.9 They are responsible for submitting detailed, itemized receipts for all expenses and for documenting their child's continued eligibility for special education services every three years (unless the child has a disability classified as permanent).10

Participating private schools are required to be accredited by a state or regional agency and, following the 2020 legislative reforms, must provide educational services that address the student's specific disability.1 They are also obligated to provide parents with itemized receipts for all tuition and fee payments to facilitate the reimbursement process.24

A critical accountability deficit, repeatedly highlighted by the PEER Committee, is the lack of a formal vetting or approval process for these schools by MDE. The majority of schools enrolling ESA students are not MDE-accredited special purpose schools, yet MDE has no mechanism to proactively verify that a school has the capacity and programming to adequately serve students with specific, often complex, disabilities before they enroll.15 This creates a system of "trust but don't verify," placing the full burden of quality assessment on parents and creating a risk that public funds could be spent at institutions ill-equipped to meet their students' needs.

PEER Committee Recommendations

In its 2024 report, the PEER Committee issued several specific, actionable recommendations aimed at strengthening program administration and accountability. Key recommendations include:

• Revising the Funding Formula: The Legislature should consider amending the funding formula to allow more eligible students to participate with the available resources.15
• Implementing a School Approval Process: MDE should be required to implement a formal application and approval process for schools wishing to enroll ESA students, potentially based on standards such as accreditation or a demonstrated capacity to serve students with disabilities.15
• Mandating Service Reporting: Participating nonpublic schools should be required to periodically report to MDE on the specific special education services that ESA participants are receiving.15

Section VII: Concluding Analysis and Forward-Looking Implications

Mississippi's Equal Opportunity for Students with Special Needs Program stands as a distinct model in the national landscape of Education Savings Accounts. Its evolution reveals a policy path defined by legislative caution, fiscal containment, and a unique reliance on institutionalized oversight. The program has successfully created a valued alternative for a small, targeted population, as evidenced by consistently high parent satisfaction and persistent demand. However, its architectural choices have also created significant challenges related to equitable access, administrative burdens, and accountability. A synthesis of the program's performance offers clear, forward-looking implications for Mississippi policymakers seeking to refine and improve this targeted intervention.

Synthesis of Findings

The analysis reveals a program defined by a core set of characteristics. It is, first and foremost, a model of deliberate constraint. Through a capped, direct appropriation funding mechanism, Mississippi has created a small-scale program whose fiscal impact on the broader K-12 system is, in the words of the state's own legislative auditor, "immaterial." This stands in sharp contrast to the universal, formula-funded model of Arizona, which is designed for large-scale market disruption.

Second, the program is characterized by high satisfaction and chronic unmet demand. The overwhelming approval from participating families serves as its most potent political defense. This satisfaction fuels a persistent waitlist, which in turn acts as a political barometer, creating the pressure that has led to incremental budget increases.

Third, its administrative design—a reimbursement-based payment system—imposes a significant financial burden on families, acting as a de facto socioeconomic filter that likely contributes to the program's geographic concentration in more affluent suburban districts. Finally, the program's accountability framework is dominated by the biennial PEER Committee review, an institutionalized feedback loop that has proven effective in driving legislative reforms, yet has also highlighted a persistent oversight deficit in the state's failure to proactively vet participating schools.

Implications and Recommendations for Mississippi Policymakers

The Mississippi experience offers several clear lessons and points toward a specific set of reforms that could enhance the program's effectiveness and equity.

• Recommendation 1: Address the Funding and Enrollment Mismatch. The current structure, where demand consistently outstrips the supply of budget-capped slots, creates a system of perpetual rationing. Policymakers must reconcile this mismatch. The recent $2 million budget increase is a positive but temporary solution. A more sustainable approach would be to reform the funding mechanism to be more responsive to demand, perhaps by moving to a model where funding is appropriated based on projected enrollment rather than a fixed dollar amount. This would provide predictability for families and eliminate the politically fraught waitlist.
• Recommendation 2: Reform the Administrative Model to Improve Equity. The requirement for parents to pay all costs upfront is the single greatest barrier to equitable access for low- and middle-income families. The Legislature should direct the MDE to transition away from the reimbursement model. Adopting a direct payment system, such as a restricted-use debit card or contracting with a third-party financial services platform, would alleviate the financial burden on families, remove the socioeconomic filter, and likely broaden the program's geographic and demographic reach.
• Recommendation 3: Implement PEER's Accountability Recommendations. The state has a valuable asset in the PEER Committee's rigorous, non-partisan analysis. The Legislature should act upon its key recommendations to close the program's most significant accountability gaps. The most critical reform is to mandate that MDE establish a formal, proactive vetting and approval process for all nonpublic schools wishing to enroll ESA students. This would shift the oversight model from reactive to proactive, ensuring that schools have a demonstrated capacity to serve students with disabilities before they receive public funds.
• Recommendation 4: Mandate Data Transparency for Enhanced Evaluation. To facilitate a more complete and ongoing evaluation of the program's impact and equity, the enabling statute should be amended. The law should require MDE to annually collect and publicly report anonymized participant demographic data, including race, ethnicity, household income, and specific disability category. This would provide a factual basis for analyzing who the program is serving, identifying potential access gaps, and ensuring that this public investment is benefiting all segments of the state's special needs population.

By embracing these reforms, Mississippi can build upon the successes of its targeted ESA program, addressing its structural weaknesses to create a more equitable, accountable, and effective educational lifeline for students with special needs and their families.

#### Works cited

1. Mississippi ESA Voucher Program \- TPCREF, accessed October 28, 2025, https://tpcref.org/mississippi-esa-voucher-program/

2. ESA Flyer – Support Services \- McComb School District, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.mccomb.k12.ms.us/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC\_ID=369237\&type=d\&pREC\_ID=2168539

3. billstatus.ls.state.ms.us, accessed October 28, 2025, https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2015/html/SB/2600-2699/SB2695SG.htm\#:\~:text=AN%20ACT%20TO%20CREATE%20A,ELIGIBILITY%20FOR%20PARTICIPATION%20IN%20THE

4. ANALYSIS OF SB2695 \-Equal Opportunity for Students with Special Needs Act \- The Parents' Campaign Research and Education Fund, accessed October 28, 2025, http://www.tpcref.org/wp-content/uploads/SB\_2695\_Analysis.pdf

5. SB2695 (As Sent to Governor) \- 2015 Regular Session \- Mississippi Legislative Bill Status System, accessed October 28, 2025, https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2015/html/SB/2600-2699/SB2695SG.htm

6. Mississippi's ESA Bill Breakdown \- EdChoice, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.edchoice.org/mississippis-esa-bill-breakdown/

7. Mississippi Code § 37-181-7 (2020) \- Funding of Education Scholarship Accounts; approval of eligible students for program participation to be on a phased-in basis \- Justia Law, accessed October 28, 2025, https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2020/title-37/chapter-181/section-37-181-7/

8. 2024 Statutory Review of Mississippi's Education Scholarship Account Program \- PEER Committee, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.peer.ms.gov/sites/default/files/peer\_publications/RPT\_710.pdf

9. Education Scholarship Account – Special Education \- Mississippi Department of Education, accessed October 28, 2025, https://mdek12.org/specialeducation/esa/

10. Understanding the Education Scholarship Account (ESA) \- Mississippi Department of Education, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.mdek12.org/sites/default/files/esa\_faq\_7.12.23.pdf

11. Mississippi Code § 37-181-5 (2024) \- \Repealed effective 7/1/2028\] Parental obligations to qualify eligible student for program participation; use of Education Scholarship Account funds \- Justia Law, accessed October 28, 2025, [https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/title-37/chapter-181/section-37-181-5/

12. Learn More About Special Needs ESAs \- Empower Mississippi, accessed October 28, 2025, https://empowerms.org/special-needs-esa/

13. K-12 Private School Scholarship Information \- Mississippi Department of Education, accessed October 28, 2025, https://mdek12.org/specialeducation/scholarship-information/

14. MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE REGULAR SESSION 2015 By: Senator(s) Collins, Ward, Watson SENATE BILL NO. 2695 (As Sent to Govern, accessed October 28, 2025, https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2015/pdf/SB/2600-2699/SB2695SG.pdf

15. 2024 Statutory Review of Mississippi's Education Scholarship Account Program Report Highlights \- Peer, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.peer.ms.gov/sites/default/files/peer\_publications/RPT\_710\_Highlights.pdf

16. Equal Opportunity for Students with Special Needs ... \- EdChoice, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/programs/mississippi-equal-opportunity-for-students-with-special-needs-program/

17. Mississippi Increases Funding for Special Needs ESA \- State Policy Network, accessed October 28, 2025, https://spn.org/mississippi-increases-funding-for-special-needs-esa/

18. HB 39 (As Introduced) \- 2025 Regular Session \- Mississippi Legislative Bill Status System, accessed October 28, 2025, https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2025/html/HB/0001-0099/HB0039IN.htm

19. 7 Miss. Code. R. 3-74.21 \- Education Scholarship Account | State Regulations | US Law, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/mississippi/7-Miss-Code-R-SS-3-74-21

20. THE SPECIAL NEEDS ESA \- Empower Mississippi, accessed October 28, 2025, https://empowerms.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ESA-Report-final.pdf

21. PEER recommends changes in Mississippi's ESA Program as 127 students are waitlisted, accessed October 28, 2025, https://magnoliatribune.com/2022/12/29/peer-recommends-changes-in-mississippis-esa-program-as-127-students-are-waitlisted/

22. 2022 Statutory Review of Mississippi's Education ... \- PEER Committee, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.peer.ms.gov/sites/default/files/peer\_publications/rpt682.pdf

23. Education Scholarship Account (ESA) Duties of the Mississippi Department of Education, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.mdek12.org/sites/default/files/esa-mississippi-department-of-education-duties\_v1.pdf

24. SB2601 (As Passed the Senate) \- 2025 Regular Session \- Mississippi Legislative Bill Status System, accessed October 28, 2025, https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2025/html/SB/2600-2699/SB2601PS.htm

25. HB1078 (As Introduced) \- 2025 Regular Session \- Mississippi Legislative Bill Status System, accessed October 28, 2025, https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2025/html/HB/1000-1099/HB1078IN.htm

26. School choice: freedom or fallout? Mississippi stands at the crossroads of education | HubCitySPOKES, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.hubcityspokes.com/school-choice-freedom-or-fallout-mississippi-stands-crossroads-education

27. Mississippi Voucher ESA Program \- Truth in Education Funding, accessed October 28, 2025, https://truthinedfunding.org/all-resources/esa/mississippi