2026 Florida Senate Bill 318 (SB318: Educational Scholarship Programs)
- HEF Admin | Crystal Crawford
- 18 hours ago
- 10 min read
First important thing to note:
This bill moves significant portions of language from 1002.394 (Family Empowerment Scholarship) and 1002.395 (Florida Tax Credit Scholarships), and places them in 1002.421 (State School Choice Scholarship Program Accountability and Oversight). This creates an oversight statute for all scholarship programs and administration in one section. This means that similarities that were in the programs will be consolidated into one section so that they are easier to find, but also that some of the nuanced differences will be combined to streamline administration.
Second thing to keep in mind:
This is a proposed bill, and it can and will get amended as it moves through committees, so what you see here will likely change. Also, the House will eventually have to weigh in, and they have their own version which has not been filed yet. It will likely come in the form of a Proposed Committee Bill (PCB) later in session, as smaller bills dealing with individual issues get condensed into a larger bill, or a PCB is generated in response to the Senate’s big bill.
Third:
It’s critical to understand the notations. A strikethrough means that language is being removed, and an underline means that language is being added. In this document, you will see large strikethrough sections and large add-on sections. This is what happens when you remove language from one section and add it to another section. The important thing is to also compare these with the language that is currently in statute, to see amidst the move what is being added or retooled.
Word of Caution:
Do NOT get carried away in the propaganda on Facebook, or the rumors, opinions and conjectures. If you are interested in the facts, you should seek sources that allow you to get those for yourself.
At this point we will recommend our HEF Discord. It is a great place to get information, accurate with cited sources and links, and admin who have 20+ (or 40+ in the case of Brenda Dickinson) years of experience in the homeschool laws in Florida, and in building homeschool communities. (We call it home education because legally in Florida that’s the term recognized in statute.)
We also highly recommend catching our podcast. We will be going over these issues each Monday at noon during legislative session, and year round. You can find it on all of the major podcast platforms as well as YouTube and Rumble.
Also, the Florida Channel broadcasts all of the meetings, sessions, etc. and archives them for you to go back and review them at any time.
Now, let’s dive into the changes proposed in this bill:
Defining key terms/acronyms:
FEFP — Florida Education Finance Program (the system for funding Florida’s public schools, including allocating a certain amount of money per student)
ESA — education savings account
FES — Family Empowerment Scholarship (a type of ESA funded by the state, which includes UA [Unique Abilities] and EO [Educational Options])
FTC — Florida Tax Credit scholarship (a type of ESA funded by donations from corporations, for which those corporations receive a tax credit)
FES-UA (commonly called just UA) — Unique Abilities, a type of ESA (under FES category) available to students with disabilities. Can be used as a registered home education student with the county, or at a private school.
FTC-PEP (commonly called just PEP) — Personalized Education Program (under the FTC category) available to students whose parents wish to direct their children’s education at home (a separate attendance track that is not the same as home education with the county)
SFO – Scholarship Funding Organization (one of the state-approved organizations responsible for managing and distributing scholarship/ESA funds)
Some of the key changes worth mentioning:
NOTE: Anything from this bill that ends up remaining and being passed into law will not take effect until July 1, 2026, meaning it would not impact the current 2025-2026 scholarship year.
Creating a new categorical fund for the Family Empowerment Scholarships.
(1011.687 Educational scholarship programs; categorical fund.)
This is a new section of statute which creates a categorical fund for the Family Empowerment Scholarship Program. The amount is determined by the General Appropriations Act and may include additional funds from the educational enrollment stabilization program (s. 1011.689).
The significance of this would be that it silos off the FES-UA scholarship from the FEFP (Florida Education Finance Program). The House argued last week that this was not an acceptable proposal because they saw this as a kiss of death for the Choice Programs as a whole, and they would not be in support of this. Expect this to be a point of contention as the session moves forward.
The part that is of special interest to the Home Education Foundation is line 267 (5) in which it states that funding is contingent upon the verification that the SFO’s are in compliance with statutes before the release of funds to the SFO’s to be dispersed according to statute. The significance of this is that until this language is implemented, the DOE has a lot of responsibilities with reporting and cross-checking, but this gives them gatekeeping authority to have all of the reports vetted and ensure eligibility BEFORE the release of funds. That’s a critical issue.
Application Process
There will be a single application process.
Lines 564+: This will help parents with applications and the SFO’s in handling the workflow.
Lines 620+: Parent may not apply for multiple scholarships, but there is authorized a process for switching between scholarships.
This is important, because some parents may begin with PEP but then later receive a diagnosis for their student. When this happens, they may be eligible to be switched to and awarded the FES-UA scholarship, which can be applied for therapies and other important eligible expenses that PEP cannot.
Application Windows
In lines 576+, the Senate’s bill 318 establishes two clear windows for application periods.
However, they specifically mark an exception for Personalized Education Program (PEP) students, which would only be available for application during one of those periods.
This is disappointing, as it means families are not able to apply for PEP for the “spring” application period, but again Senator Gaetz said that it’s not a perfect bill. Hopefully, we can address the importance of the PEP scholarship also being available, however we’re not sure that the SFO’s will like this as it does increase their workload.
On the other hand, it does extend the “fall” application window for PEP to “no later than July 15“ rather than the earlier April 30 application deadline from the current statutes… which means parents will have more time to make their decision as to whether to apply for PEP.
Payments
Addresses the process and requirements for the SFOs and DOE to award scholarship funds to student accounts.
Lines 616+: Clears up “overpayment” issues. Previously, the SFO’s and the Department of Education would (in some instances) award the full scholarship to a student who came in late to the program. Now, the student would only be awarded a partial scholarship for what remains of the installments available for that school year.
Lines 793+: This states that, before a payment can be made into the student’s account, the parent must attest that they are still enrolled in accordance with their scholarship eligibility, and not in public school.
This means that the parent will have to do this verification 10 times each scholarship year, because the bill also proposes 10 payouts in the payment schedule (per lines 851-852). However, what seems to be missing is a deadline for what constitutes complying or missing this opportunity.
Test Scores
July 15 is introduced as the deadline for parents to submit the test scores/assessment results for any renewing PEP students.
Student Eligibility and Cross-checks
Lines 656+ address the problem of the SFOs sometimes using inaccurate information on the intake process (nicknames, etc).
An example of the type of situation this addresses: A parent might have used the name Rodney but the student’s birth certificate may have read Rodrigo, or the parent may submit a name DJ and the student’s name was Dorothy-Jane. These situations create issues when cross-checking the data, since the name in the SFO’s system may not match the records held by the DOE. This was a difficult spot to be in for the SFOs, because if they are requesting a birth certificate to verify the student’s name, and yet statute does not currently authorize them to collect this information, they should not be collecting it. So, this has been a problem in the verification and cross check process.
So, this bill includes the requirement that the student’s birth certificate be submitted to the SFO for verification.
Accountability
Lines 814+: Add accountability for the SFOs to ensure that they are not making payments into a student’s account prior to parent’s attesting and cross-check verification. The SFO’s will be liable for payments made in violation of this process or improperly awarded.
Lines 1693+: The school districts must provide the parents with the completed withdrawal form within 10 days of the parent’s request. This puts a definitive timeline on the issue of the cross-checks when the Department and the SFOs need the information from the school. The school may not delay beyond 10 days.
We believe this is a little long, and we would like to see this be 7 days.
Interest
There’s been much speculation about this, and in the committee meetings for the Auditor General’s presentations, it was found that the FTC funds had in fact found interest that had accrued that was not paid into the student’s accounts.
Lines 873+: Clarify that all scholarships should be handled uniformly, and that the interest accrued is only available for authorized expenditures in the student’s scholarship account.
Protection for Students from Processing Fees
Lines 881 and following address that a student’s scholarship may not be reduced to cover credit card or electronic payment fees by the SFO.
Caps
Lines 940+ handle the issues raised by the Auditor General in which they found that there were accounts in excess of $50k in the FES-UA program.
Contracted Services
Lines 947-949: Updates the language to allow for FES-UA and PEP to both pay for contracted services from the district public schools.
Background Checks and Screening
We had discussed this issue with the Senate at length during last session. Well, they heard us.
They have updated the language here to be aimed at individual service providers who are participating through the SFO’s online platform for direct purchases. In other words, the background check/screening requirement would only apply to providers in the direct-pay marketplace, and would be part of the requirements those providers must meet to be approved by the SFO and added to the SFO’s online direct-purchase system.
This is an important update to the language, as it allows the parents seeking reimbursements to (figuratively speaking) operate without a lifeguard on duty, meaning they can swim at their own risk… i.e., parents can choose any qualified service provider that meets the other requirements for reimbursement, without needing to supply a background check. However, for those parents choosing service providers from the online direct-purchase portals, the required background screenings would put protections in place to ensure that the SFOs are not serving up service providers to parents who cannot pass the background screening requirements.
HYBRID Model comes to FES-UA!
So, a while back, the PEP statutes were changed to allow funds to be used in a hybrid/part-time private school setting. Lines 1161+, expand this to also include a hybrid model for the FES-UA scholarship program.
This means that UA students would be allowed to attend a private school 2+ days a week, and satisfy the remaining instructional time at home according to the student learning plan.
We’re still seeking clarity on this part, because Student Learning Plans are currently required to be submitted for PEP but not for UA. So, would UA now be required to have one if participating in a hybrid program? Or does this requirement still only apply to PEP?
Uniform Reimbursement Process
Lines 1506 are interesting. They provide the Department of Education with the responsibility, in consultation with the SFOs, to develop a uniform reimbursement process that the organizations must use beginning 2026-2027.
The SFOs must approve, deny, request more information within 30 days. The department shall coordinate with SFO’s and collect input and feedback from parents, private schools and providers before making substantial changes to the reimbursement process.
Eligible Expenses
Lines 1865-1866: Eligible expenses would now include membership dues and related activity fees for participation in career and technical student organizations.
This is an EXCELLENT addition to be spelled out as an eligible expense.
Lines 1826, 3121: DIGITAL DEVICES added as eligible expenses in FES-EO and FTC-PEP!
Lines 1890+: Home Education Instructional Programs are defined. This is something that’s vital to the protection of home education instructional programs (like co-ops, etc.) as we move toward a place where this scholarship program comes under additional scrutiny.
The definition here is an older version proposed previously. We would like to see the definition that we were working on last session instead, because it would add clarity and protection for the historical methods of home education programs done by parents for the last 40 years.
This is a critical issue as many programs are popping up without transparency, without publicly available descriptions, and we must continue to operate above board.
We also would like to see microschools defined and separated out as these drop-off programs that are full-time, school-like, full drop-off services are not Home Education Instructional Programs where parents are deeply and actively involved in the educational process. We believe that parents should have BOTH as an option, but that they are different. This issue becomes more cumbersome as municipalities and DCF get involved to decide what regulations or exceptions should apply.
Changes to Account Closings
Line 1992: Changed from 2 fiscal years of inactivity to 1 year.
Line 1999+: SFO must notify parent prior to closing account.
Lines 3816-3818: Accounts close and funds revert back when a student graduates from high school, completes a home education program as defined in the student’s personalized education plan, or attains 21 years of age, whichever occurs first.
This means that accounts will close when the student finishes their PEP plan, or graduates high school. For FES-UA students, they are not registered through PEP, and they can continue to be enrolled as home education students and extend their education up towards 21 years of age.
We are still seeking some clarity on this one, as part of the wording seems to conflate PEP terms with home education, even though they are two separate attendance tracks.
Lines 2295-2298: New responsibility for the Department of Education in regards to developing guidance for students who are eligible about available transition services, including post-secondary education, employment, and independent living, for which scholarship funds may be used.
Clarification of Process for Reserving Funds for Services
Lines 2490-2494 and Lines 3534-3538: This addresses a complication that existed previously—Florida Virtual School has a payment model that allows them to transact the funds AFTER a student has completed a course of study. There were many situations in which students would sign up for FLVS and the parent would still be able to spend the money from the account, and when it came time for the student to finish their course and FLVS to be paid, the money was gone.
Scholarship Funding Organization’s income adjustment
SFO’s amount adjusted down from 2.5% to 1.5% of the total amount of all VERIFIED ELIGIBLE scholarships.
This language is very important, as it lowers the overall amount of money the SFOs can receive for administering the program. This is a big change. The number seems small, but think of it in terms of the whole. It’s nearly a 50% reduction in what they are eligible to receive for administering the program.
You can find a full copy of the proposed bill text on the Senate's website here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2026/318/?Tab=BillText
OR access the PDF version of the bill text (accurate as of 11-24-25) below.
Be sure to catch our HEF Podcast Episode 113 where we break down this in detail as well!