West Virginia ESA Program

# The Mountaineer Experiment: A Comprehensive Analysis of West Virginia's Hope Scholarship Program

Section I: The Architectural Evolution of West Virginia's Hope Scholarship

West Virginia’s Hope Scholarship program, one of the nation’s most expansive Education Savings Account (ESA) initiatives, represents a significant and rapid restructuring of the state's K-12 education landscape. Its development, from a bold legislative concept through a crucible of legal challenges to its current state of exponential growth, offers a compelling case study in the implementation of broad-based school choice. The program's unique administrative structure, its legally affirmed constitutional standing, and its built-in pathway to universal eligibility are foundational architectural elements that dictate its current function and future trajectory.

The Genesis (2021): A National Precedent in Scope

The Hope Scholarship was enacted in 2021 through the passage of House Bill 2013, establishing a program notable for its ambitious scope from its very inception.1 Unlike many state-level choice programs that begin as limited pilot projects for specific student populations, the Hope Scholarship was designed with a broad initial eligibility base and a clear, time-bound trigger for universal expansion. This design signaled a profound policy commitment to the ESA model as a central feature of the state's education system.2 The program's official name is the "Hope Scholarship Program," and its legal framework is codified in West Virginia State Code §18-31-1 et seq..5

A key architectural choice was the program's unique governance model. Administrative authority was vested not in the State Department of Education, but in the nine-member West Virginia Hope Scholarship Board. The State Treasurer serves as the board's chairman, and the Treasurer's Office provides all staffing and logistical support.1 The board's composition includes the Treasurer, State Auditor, Attorney General, and State Superintendent of Schools, among others, creating an administrative center of gravity outside the traditional education bureaucracy.4 This decision to house the program within the Treasurer's Office was a significant departure from typical education governance and became a central point of contention in subsequent legal challenges.

The Legal Crucible (2022): Injunction and Supreme Court Reversal

Shortly after its enactment, the program’s constitutionality was challenged in court. Plaintiffs argued that the Hope Scholarship violated Article XII, Section 1 of the West Virginia Constitution, which mandates that the legislature provide for "a thorough and efficient system of free schools".2 In July 2022, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County issued a preliminary injunction, halting the program just as it was set to launch. The court agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that the state could not constitutionally fund a "separate system of education," a decision that threw the program's inaugural year into disarray.1

This legal victory for opponents was short-lived. In a pivotal ruling in November 2022, the West Virginia Supreme Court permanently overturned the injunction, delivering a decisive affirmation of the program's legality.1 The Court’s opinion established that the constitutional mandate to provide a system of public schools does not prohibit the legislature from also funding additional educational options for families.2 This decision was more than a procedural victory; it represented a fundamental reinterpretation of the state's constitutional obligations regarding education. By affirming the legislature's power to fund education outside the confines of the traditional public system, the Supreme Court provided a powerful legal shield and political accelerant for the school choice movement in West Virginia. The ruling effectively neutralized the primary constitutional argument against the program, shifting the debate from a question of legality to one of policy and providing a secure foundation upon which the program could grow toward its universal phase.

The Universal Leap (Scheduled for 2026-2027): A Phased-In Transformation

The Hope Scholarship's enabling legislation contains a unique, automated mechanism for expansion. Initial eligibility was restricted, requiring students to either have prior public school attendance (a "switcher" mandate) or be entering kindergarten.3 This structure was designed to control initial costs by limiting participation primarily to students the state was already funding in the public system.

However, the statute included a critical trigger: if the combined number of participants and eligible applicants did not reach 5% of the state's net public school enrollment by July 1, 2024, eligibility would automatically expand to become universal for all West Virginia school-age children, beginning in the 2026-2027 school year.3 Official announcements from the State Treasurer's Office have confirmed that this participation threshold was not met, thereby triggering the universal expansion.1 This legislated transformation is the most significant structural change in the program's design. Starting in 2026, students currently enrolled in private schools or homeschools—who were previously ineligible unless they first enrolled in a public school—will be able to join the program directly. This will shift the program's primary function from a targeted "exit ramp" out of the public system to a broad-based subsidy for nearly all forms of non-public education, a change with profound fiscal and demographic implications.

The following table provides a concise summary of the program's foundational identity, allowing for a high-level comparison with ESA programs in other states.

Section II: Financial Architecture and the Flow of Funds

The financial structure of the Hope Scholarship program is a product of deliberate policy choices that dictate the value of the awards, the source of funding, and the program's overall fiscal scale. The specific design of the funding formula is the central pillar of the program's political and fiscal strategy, allowing proponents to frame it as both a generous benefit for families and a cost-effective use of taxpayer dollars.

The Funding Formula: Tying Value to State Aid

The value of an individual Hope Scholarship is determined by a specific statutory formula: 100% of the prior year's statewide average net state aid allotted per pupil, based on net enrollment adjusted for state aid purposes.3 This formula directly links the ESA award to the state's public education funding formula. However, it critically and deliberately excludes local funding sources, such as county-level property taxes, which constitute a significant portion of total public school revenue. This exclusion is the key design choice that makes the ESA award substantially lower than the total average per-pupil expenditure in the public school system. This built-in cost differential is the mathematical foundation for the argument that the program generates net savings for the state.

Award Amounts and Annual Variation

Because the award is tied to the state aid formula, the specific dollar amount varies each year. The program has seen a steady increase in its annual award value:

• FY 2023: The average award during the inaugural, partial year was $3,938, a figure reduced by the mid-year launch and proration for some students.15
• FY 2024: The full-year award was reported as $4,299 or $4,489 in different analyses, a minor discrepancy reflecting different calculation points.3
• FY 2025: The official award amount is $4,921.39.18
• FY 2026: The projected award amount is $5,267.38.13

To accommodate families who enroll after the school year has begun, the program utilizes a prorated funding model. Students who apply by the June 15 deadline receive 100% of the annual award, while those who apply later in the year receive a reduced amount of 75%, 50%, or 25%, depending on the application window.10

Funding Source and Total Program Cost

The Hope Scholarship is funded through an annual legislative appropriation. These funds are transferred to a dedicated special revenue fund, the "West Virginia Hope Scholarship Program Fund," which is administered by the State Treasurer.3 Program proponents frequently emphasize that this separate appropriation means that funds are not being directly withdrawn from the public school budget for a given fiscal year, but are instead allocated independently by the legislature.2

In tandem with its rapid enrollment growth, the program's gross cost has increased exponentially:

• FY 2023: Approximately $9.2 million.12
• FY 2024: Approximately $24.4 million.15
• FY 2025: Estimated cost of $52.1 million.17
• FY 2026: The total legislative appropriation is approximately $120 million, though some projections of need, particularly after the universal expansion, rise as high as $315 million.22

Financial Management and Allowable Expenses

Parents manage their student's funds through a third-party financial services platform. The state has contracted with Student First Technologies, which operates the online portal under the name "Theodore" and utilizes a payment system called "TheoPay".24 This platform functions as a digital marketplace where parents can direct payments to approved vendors for a wide range of qualifying educational expenses. This list of allowable uses is broad and is the defining feature of the ESA model, including private school tuition and fees, tutoring services, curriculum and textbooks, online learning programs, educational therapies, testing fees, and other approved educational goods and services.3

Section III: Enrollment Dynamics and the Approaching Universal Wave

The single most dramatic feature of the Hope Scholarship's early years has been its explosive growth in student enrollment. This surge has reshaped the program from a nascent initiative into a significant component of West Virginia's K-12 ecosystem. Analyzing this growth trajectory, the contested data surrounding its participant base, and the looming impact of universal eligibility reveals a program rapidly approaching a critical inflection point.

The Post-Launch Enrollment Explosion

Despite a tumultuous launch marked by a legal injunction, the Hope Scholarship has experienced exponential growth, demonstrating significant demand for educational alternatives. The program's enrollment has followed a classic "S-curve" of new market adoption:

• FY 2023 (Inaugural Year): 2,333 students participated after the program was reinstated mid-year.1
• FY 2024: Enrollment more than doubled to 5,443 students.1 Some analyses cite a slightly higher figure of 5,971.15
• FY 2025: The program awarded scholarships to over 11,000 students, with official press releases noting that nearly 15,000 students were approved to receive full funding for the year.1
• FY 2026 (Projected): The State Treasurer's Office anticipates participation will reach nearly 19,000 students, even before the universal expansion takes effect.20

This pattern of rapid acceleration is set to intensify dramatically with the 2026 universal expansion, which will open the program to tens of thousands of previously ineligible students.

The "Switcher Rate": A Contested and Obscured Metric

A critical metric for understanding any ESA program's fiscal and systemic impact is the "switcher rate"—the percentage of participants who were previously enrolled in a public school. Unlike Arizona, West Virginia does not publish an official switcher rate, creating a data vacuum that has become the central point of contention in the debate over the program's true effects. This has allowed two competing narratives to emerge, each supported by a different interpretation of the available data.

One perspective, advanced by critics at the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy (WVCBP), directly links the Hope Scholarship to declining public school enrollment. An analysis by the WVCBP attributed 51.9% of the statewide public school enrollment loss between FY 2023 and FY 2024 directly to students leaving for the Hope program. In eight counties, the number of new Hope participants reportedly exceeded the total enrollment decline, implying those districts would have actually grown were it not for the program.12 This model implicitly assumes that a very high percentage of Hope participants are "switchers" whose departure creates a direct, one-for-one impact on public school rolls and funding.

A competing narrative emerges from the program's own demographic data, which suggests a low switcher rate. Official reports and subsequent analyses show a disproportionately high number of participants in the youngest grade levels. In FY 2023, nearly half of all recipients were in pre-kindergarten or kindergarten.12 This trend continued in FY 2024, with nearly half of participants being in kindergarten and first grade.17 Because kindergarteners are statutorily exempt from the prior public school attendance requirement, this large and foundational cohort of the program consists of "non-switchers" by definition. These students represent an entirely new cost to the state, as the state was not previously funding their education, rather than a simple transfer of funding from one sector to another. The program's design contains a fundamental contradiction: a "switcher" requirement intended to control costs coexists with a kindergarten exemption that actively subverts that goal. This internal policy conflict creates two simultaneous and opposing fiscal realities—one of cost-transfer from switchers and one of new spending on kindergarteners—both of which are factually supported by the available data, explaining the intractability of the public debate.

The Looming Universal Wave

The scheduled universal expansion in the 2026-2027 school year will fundamentally alter the program's composition, cost, and function. All existing private school and homeschool students, estimated to number over 30,000, will become eligible to apply.12 This will inevitably shift the program's primary function from an "exit ramp" for public school students to a broad subsidy for all forms of non-public education. Projections for this expansion anticipate that total enrollment could surge to over 40,000 or 50,000 students, driving the program's annual cost to well over $200 million and potentially as high as $300 million.12

The following table visualizes the program's exponential growth and connects it to key changes in its operational and eligibility framework.

Section IV: The Participant Profile: A Landscape Obscured by Data Gaps

A central question in the debate over any universal school choice program is a simple one: Who uses it? The answer is critical to assessing the program's equity and its alignment with its stated goals. In West Virginia, as in Arizona, a definitive answer to this question is elusive, obscured by a significant lack of official state-collected demographic data. This forces any analysis to rely on proxy data, which reveals a program whose participants are heavily concentrated by geography and grade level.

The Data Vacuum: An Absence of Official Reporting

There is a significant gap in official, publicly available data on the socioeconomic or racial demographics of Hope Scholarship participants.12 The program currently has no income limits for applicants, a feature that critics argue makes it a potential subsidy for wealthier families who could already afford private options.17 While the program's enabling legislation does mandate future public reporting on participant demographics, this requirement is deliberately delayed. The first such report is not due to the Legislative Oversight Commission on Education Accountability until December 31, 2026, after the program has already become universal.8 This timing means that the most critical and costly phase of the program's expansion will occur without the benefit of concurrent, official data on who is benefiting from it.

A Profile from Proxy Data: Geography and Grade Level

In the absence of direct demographic reporting, a participant profile can be constructed using two key data points that are available through official reports and independent analyses: geography and grade level.

Geographic Concentration: Program participation is not evenly distributed across the state. An analysis of FY 2024 data reveals that nearly 40% of all Hope Scholarship recipients were concentrated in just five of West Virginia's 55 counties: Kanawha (720), Berkeley (439), Wood (357), Raleigh (308), and Cabell (289).17 This geographic clustering is not random; it correlates strongly with the existing supply of private schools in the state. The same five counties are home to nearly 30% of all of West Virginia's private schools.17 This suggests that the Hope Scholarship, in its current phase, is functioning less as a tool to create new educational options statewide and more as a financial subsidy to enhance access to the existing private school market, which is itself geographically concentrated. This creates a de facto barrier to access for families in the many rural counties that have a limited supply of, or no, private school providers.

Grade-Level Concentration: The most definitive demographic characteristic of the program's participants is their age. As previously noted, participants are heavily skewed toward the youngest grade levels. In FY 2024, nearly half of all students receiving the scholarship were in kindergarten or first grade.17 This heavy concentration has significant implications for the fiscal debate, as it provides clear evidence of a large "non-switcher" population that represents a new cost to the state.

The charts below visualize these two key findings, illustrating the dramatic skew in the participant profile based on the available proxy data.

Figure 1: Hope Scholarship Enrollment by Grade Level (FY2024)

• Kindergarten & 1st Grade: \~50%
• Grades 2-12: \~50%

Figure 2: Top 5 Counties by Participant Headcount (FY2024)

• Kanawha: 720
• Berkeley: 439
• Wood: 357
• Raleigh: 308
• Cabell: 289
• These five counties account for nearly 40% of all program participants.

Section V: The Fiscal Impact: A Dueling Analysis of Savings and Systemic Costs

The fiscal impact of the Hope Scholarship is the most fiercely contested aspect of the program, with two diametrically opposed narratives dominating the public discourse. One model, advanced by the program's supporters, portrays it as a highly efficient mechanism that generates net savings for taxpayers. The other, championed by critics, views it as a fiscally irresponsible policy that drains resources from the public school system and drives budget deficits. These dueling models are not based on different raw data, but on fundamentally different assumptions about how to calculate the costs and benefits of a large-scale school choice initiative.

Model 1: The Revenue-Neutral / Net Savings Model

The first model, advanced by pro-school choice organizations like EdChoice and the Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy, argues that the Hope Scholarship is largely revenue-neutral or even produces a net savings for taxpayers.15

The core premise of this model is that the program is highly cost-effective because the per-student cost of a Hope Scholarship is a fraction of the total per-pupil cost in the public school system. The methodology involves a direct comparison of the ESA award amount (e.g., \~$4,489 in FY 2024\) to the average total funding per pupil for public schools, which includes both state and local funds (e.g., \~$16,500 in FY 2024).15 From this perspective, every student who "switches" from a public school to the Hope program generates a substantial net savings for the state and local taxpayers.

Key findings from this model for FY 2024 include:

• The program generated an estimated $26.9 million in net fiscal benefits for local taxpayers.16
• While the program had a small net cost to the state of $637,412, this amount was negligible, representing just 0.02% of total K-12 education funding.16
• Because public school districts retain a significant portion of their funding even after a student leaves, the resources available for students who remain in the public system actually increase on a per-pupil basis, by an average of $269 per student.16

Model 2: The Deficit-Driver / Systemic Cost Model

The second model, championed by critics such as the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy and investigative reporters, presents a starkly different picture. This model frames the program as a primary driver of disinvestment in public education, leading to tangible, negative consequences for districts, educators, and students.12

The methodology of this model focuses on the gross cost of the program as a direct diversion of funds that would otherwise be available for the public school system. It emphasizes the new spending required for the significant "non-switcher" population (such as kindergarteners) and highlights the inability of school districts to proportionally reduce their fixed costs—such as building maintenance, utilities, and transportation—when enrollment declines incrementally.

Key findings from this perspective include:

• The program's gross cost is growing exponentially and is projected to balloon to over $300 million annually after the 2026 universal expansion.12
• The program is directly responsible for a significant portion of public school enrollment decline, which triggers reductions in state aid to districts. This has reportedly forced districts across the state to eliminate hundreds of staff positions and, in some cases, close schools.12
• The program operates with "limited guardrails" and diverts hundreds of millions of dollars that critics argue could be used to address pressing needs in the public system, such as raising teacher pay from its ranking as 51st in the nation.17

The fundamental disagreement between these two models stems from their differing accounting treatment of public school costs. The "Net Savings" model implicitly treats public school expenditures as mostly variable on a per-student basis; when a student leaves, the full cost associated with that student is assumed to be "saved" over the long term. In contrast, the "Deficit-Driver" model treats a larger portion of public school costs as fixed; when a student leaves, the district must still operate the school bus, heat the classroom, and pay the principal, meaning the actual savings are far less than the average per-pupil expenditure. The entire multi-million-dollar debate hinges on this fundamental, and contestable, assumption about the underlying cost structure of public education.

The following table provides a side-by-side comparison of the two competing fiscal models, deconstructing their core assumptions and resulting conclusions for FY 2024\.

Section VI: Administration and Accountability: A Framework Under Strain

While public debate often centers on the high-level fiscal impacts of the Hope Scholarship, a critical and growing concern lies in its operational reality: the administration and oversight of a program with thousands of individual accounts and a budget set to exceed $100 million. The program's exponential growth has created a potential mismatch between its scale and its administrative capacity, leading to critiques that its oversight framework is insufficient to ensure accountability for taxpayer funds.

The Statutory Oversight Framework

The program's legal framework grants significant oversight authority to the Hope Scholarship Board. State code empowers the board to conduct or contract for random audits of both individual parent accounts and participating education service providers (ESPs) to ensure compliance.6 The board has the explicit power to suspend or remove parents from the program or to bar providers from receiving payments for non-compliance or the misuse of funds. In cases of suspected fraud, the board is authorized to refer cases to the State Auditor for a formal investigation.8

Recent legislation has sought to strengthen these provisions. A bill passed in 2024 (HB 4945\) added new accountability measures, including a mandate that ESPs conduct criminal background checks for all employees who will have contact with Hope Scholarship students. The law also explicitly prohibits ESPs from engaging in price discrimination by charging Hope students higher tuition or fees than other students.33

Critiques of "Limited Guardrails" and Lack of Transparency

Despite this statutory framework, critics argue that the Hope Scholarship operates with dangerously few "guardrails" compared to similar programs in other states, creating significant risks for fiscal irresponsibility and a lack of transparency.17 The most pointed critiques focus on several key areas:

• No Caps: The program has no legislative caps on total program cost or the number of students who can enroll, making it an open-ended entitlement that grows based on demand.17
• No Income Limits: The program is not means-tested, allowing families of any income level to participate.17
• Lax Provider Requirements: A significant point of concern is the lack of stringent requirements for participating schools and providers. There is no mandate that participating private schools be accredited or even located within West Virginia.17 An analysis of FY 2024 spending revealed that over $1 million in Hope Scholarship funds were spent at out-of-state providers, and $6 million went to unaccredited schools within the state.17
• Minimal Academic Accountability: For the large cohort of students on an "individualized instructional program" (e.g., homeschoolers), the academic oversight requirements are minimal. Parents must simply submit the results from a nationally norm-referenced test or provide a portfolio of the student's work for review by a certified teacher. There is no state-mandated performance standard that students must meet to remain eligible.3

The program's design creates a fundamental tension between its core philosophy of empowering parents through maximum flexibility and the public's demand for the stringent fiscal accountability of taxpayer dollars. The administrative challenges and public debates over spending are not merely implementation failures; they are the direct and predictable consequence of a policy that was intentionally designed to prioritize parental choice over prescriptive state control. Every proposed regulation to increase accountability, such as narrowing the definition of an allowable expense, inherently reduces the parental flexibility that is the program's primary political and functional appeal.

Section VII: Concluding Analysis and Forward-Looking Implications

West Virginia's journey with the Hope Scholarship has firmly established the state as a national laboratory for the rapid implementation of expansive school choice. The program's evolution provides a rich and complex case study, offering profound lessons for policymakers in West Virginia and across the country. The analysis reveals a core tension: the state has successfully created a high-demand, legally-defensible market for educational choice, yet this rapid scaling has outpaced the development of the data, transparency, and oversight infrastructure required to manage it effectively and maintain long-term public trust.

Synthesis of Findings

The exponential growth in Hope Scholarship participation, from just over 2,300 students in its first year to a projected 19,000 before its universal expansion, demonstrates a significant latent demand for educational alternatives in West Virginia. However, this success in market creation has been shadowed by significant challenges. The lack of official demographic and "switcher" data has spawned a polarized and data-poor debate about the program's true fiscal and systemic impacts, pitting a narrative of taxpayer savings against one of public school disinvestment. The program's core design contains internal conflicts—most notably the switcher mandate versus the kindergarten exemption—that fuel these competing and seemingly irreconcilable fiscal narratives. Most critically, the administrative framework, designed to maximize parental flexibility, faces a significant challenge in balancing that foundational goal with the need for rigorous fiscal oversight, a tension that will only intensify as the program's budget grows into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Forward-Looking Implications for West Virginia

As the Hope Scholarship approaches its universal phase, the state faces several critical, forward-looking challenges:

• The Fiscal Cliff: The 2026 universal expansion represents a predictable and massive fiscal event. The state legislature will be forced to reconcile the program's uncapped, demand-driven cost with all other budgetary priorities. This will likely necessitate a difficult choice between implementing new cost controls on the program—such as enrollment caps or income limits—or making significant spending cuts in other areas of the state budget.
• The Supply-Side Challenge: As tens of thousands of new students become eligible for the program, the existing supply of private schools and qualified education service providers may prove insufficient to meet demand, particularly in the state's many rural counties. This could lead to the emergence of new, potentially lower-quality or unaccredited providers, placing even greater strain on the state's limited oversight capacity.
• The Data Deficit: The continued lack of transparent data on participant demographics and academic outcomes will become politically untenable as the program consumes an ever-larger share of the state budget. Without this data, policymakers will be making high-stakes decisions in an evidence vacuum, unable to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the program's effectiveness, equity, or return on investment.

Lessons for Other States and Recommendations

For other states considering or implementing universal ESA programs, West Virginia's experience offers several critical lessons that can help avoid similar pitfalls:

• Mandate Data Transparency from Day One: Enabling legislation for any ESA program should require the administering agency to collect and publicly report anonymized participant demographic data—including household income, race/ethnicity, and prior school enrollment status—from the program's inception, not as a delayed afterthought. This proactive measure is the only way to provide a factual basis for evaluating program equity and fiscal impact.
• Build Scalable Oversight: Administrative funding and oversight capacity, specifically the number of auditors and the sophistication of review systems, must be explicitly tied to program enrollment or budget size within the authorizing statute. This ensures that accountability infrastructure grows in lockstep with the program, rather than lagging years behind.
• Anticipate the Fiscal Impact of Universal Expansion: States must conduct realistic, dynamic fiscal modeling that fully accounts for the "non-switcher" population (i.e., existing private and homeschool students) that will join a universal program. This cohort represents a significant new state expenditure that is often underestimated in initial projections.
• Provide Statutory Clarity on Allowable Expenses: To prevent misuse and reduce administrative ambiguity, legislatures should provide clear, detailed definitions and examples of allowable educational expenses in the authorizing statute, rather than leaving this critical function to administrative rulemaking. Vague language creates confusion for parents and makes consistent and fair enforcement nearly impossible.

The West Virginia Hope Scholarship underscores the urgent need for robust data, transparent reporting, and an administrative capacity that is equal to the scale of the promises being made. While a well-designed program can be a powerful tool for families, its long-term success and political viability depend entirely on building a foundation of fiscal responsibility and public accountability.

#### Works cited

1. Hope Scholarship Annual Report Template 1, accessed October 28, 2025, https://hopescholarshipwv.gov/Portals/HopeScholarship/content/Documents/Reports/Hope%20Scholarship%2023-24%20Annual%20Report.pdf?ver=ZuPbIS1dYgDZkPhFJseMEQ%3D%3D/

2. West Virginia School Choice \- The Institute for Justice, accessed October 28, 2025, https://ij.org/case/west-virginia-school-choice/

3. Hope Scholarship Program \- EdChoice, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/programs/hope-scholarship-program/

4. What You Need to Know About the Legal Challenge to West Virginia's Hope Scholarship, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.edchoice.org/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-legal-challenge-to-west-virginias-hope-scholarship/

5. Hope Scholarship \> Home \> About \> State Code, accessed October 28, 2025, https://hopescholarshipwv.gov/Home/About/State-Code

6. West Virginia Code | §18-31, accessed October 28, 2025, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/18-31/

7. Building State ESA Tracker.pdf

8. West Virginia Code | §18-31, accessed October 28, 2025, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/email/18-31/

9. Hope Scholarship Annual Report Template 1, accessed October 28, 2025, https://hopescholarshipwv.gov/Portals/HopeScholarship/content/Documents/Reports/Hope%20Scholarship%2022-23%20Annual%20Report.pdf?ver=b00P-zWfqfcR8bu4OzkZdg%3D%3D

10. New Students \- Hope Scholarship, accessed October 28, 2025, https://hopescholarshipwv.gov/Home/Parents-Students/New-Students

11. Hope Scholarship, accessed October 28, 2025, https://hopescholarshipwv.gov/

12. wvpolicy.org, accessed October 28, 2025, https://wvpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Hope-Scholarship-Fact-Sheet.docx

13. Hope Scholarship \> Home \> About \> FAQ, accessed October 28, 2025, https://hopescholarshipwv.gov/Home/About/FAQ

14. West Virginia Code | §18-31-6, accessed October 28, 2025, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/18-31-6/

15. West Virginia Hope Scholarship Program Fiscal ... \- Cardinal Institute, accessed October 28, 2025, https://cardinalinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/West-Virginia-Hope-Scholarship-Fiscal-Memo-1.pdf

16. Hope Scholarship Delivers Wins for Families and Taxpayers ..., accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.edchoice.org/2025-hope-scholarship-delivers-wins-for-families-and-taxpayers/

17. The Perfect Storm: Limited Oversight and Accountability Contribute ..., accessed October 28, 2025, https://wvpolicy.org/the-perfect-storm-limited-oversight-and-accountability-contribute-to-growing-costs-of-the-hope-scholarship-2/

18. Hope Scholarship \- Cardinal Institute, accessed October 28, 2025, https://cardinalinstitute.com/hope-scholarship/

19. FAQs | West Virginia Hope Scholarship \- demo-sales, accessed October 28, 2025, https://demosales.us.engagementhq.com/west-virginia-hope-scholarship/faqs

20. Treasurer Pack Announces Nearly 15000 Students to Receive 100% Hope Scholarship Funding for 2025-2026 School Year \- WV Treasury, accessed October 28, 2025, https://wvtreasury.gov/About/Press-Releases/details/treasurer-pack-announces-nearly-15-000-students-to-receive-100-hope-scholarship-funding-for-2025-2026-school-year

21. The Perfect Storm: Limited Oversight and Accountability Contribute to Growing Costs of the Hope Scholarship \- West Virginia Center on Budget & Policy, accessed October 28, 2025, https://wvpolicy.org/the-perfect-storm-limited-oversight-and-accountability-contribute-to-growing-costs-of-the-hope-scholarship/

22. Hope Scholarship On Pace To Almost Double Enrollment \- West Virginia Public Broadcasting, accessed October 28, 2025, https://wvpublic.org/story/education/hope-scholarship-on-pace-to-almost-double-enrollment/

23. Hope Scholarship cost could balloon to $300m, accessed October 28, 2025, https://mountainstatespotlight.org/2025/03/13/hope-scholarship-rising-cost-millions/

24. West Virginia Hope Scholarship | Powered by Theodore, accessed October 28, 2025, https://app.hopescholarshipwv.com/

25. Hope Scholarship Program Provider & Vendor FAQs, accessed October 28, 2025, https://hopescholarshipwv.com/Home/Service-Providers/Provider-FAQ.aspx

26. In the Wild West of School Voucher Expansions, States Rely on Untested Companies, With Mixed Results \- ProPublica, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.propublica.org/article/school-voucher-management-classwallet-odyssey-merit-student-first

27. How to use state funding for homeschooling \- Time4Learning, accessed October 28, 2025, https://www.time4learning.com/pages/esa-page

28. Hope Scholarship Info for Parents \- Cardinal Institute, accessed October 28, 2025, https://cardinalinstitute.com/research/hope-scholarship-info-for-parents/

29. Hope Scholarship-driven Enrollment Decline has Major Impacts on Public Schools and Students \- West Virginia Center on Budget & Policy, accessed October 28, 2025, https://wvpolicy.org/hope-scholarship-driven-enrollment-decline/

30. WEST VIRGINIA CODE: §18-31-14, accessed October 28, 2025, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/pdf/18-31-14/

31. Research & Commentary: Analysis Finds West Virginia's Hope Scholarship Program Delivered $27 Million in Net Fiscal Benefits in 2024 \- The Heartland Institute, accessed October 28, 2025, https://heartland.org/publications/research-commentary-analysis-finds-west-virginias-hope-scholarship-program-delivered-27-million-in-net-fiscal-benefits-in-2024/

32. West Virginia Code Chapter 18\. Education § 18-31-9. Administration of Hope Scholarship accounts \- Codes \- FindLaw, accessed October 28, 2025, https://codes.findlaw.com/wv/chapter-18-education/wv-code-sect-18-31-9.html/

33. Legislative Summary: 2024 House Bill 4945 \- Hope Scholarship, accessed October 28, 2025, https://hopescholarshipwv.gov/Home/About/State-Code/HB-4945