A look at the nation’s first federal private school choice program

By

Ballotpedia staff

Welcome to the Friday, July 18, 2025, Brew. 

By: Lara Bonatesta

Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

  1. A look at the nation’s first federal private school choice program
  2. The view from the summit: What things might look like after we reach full national election coverage, by Leslie Graves, Ballotpedia Founder and CEO
  3. Washington, D.C. council votes to fund RCV and other updates on local RCV adoption

A look at the nation’s first federal private school choice program

An extended version of the story appeared in Ballotpedia’s Hall Pass newsletter on July 16. Click here to read that version.

Earlier this week, we took a look at the changes that Congress’ budget reconciliation law, titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” made to SNAP and Medicaid. Today, we’re reviewing another one of the bill’s provisions, which creates the nation’s first federal private school choice program.

The Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) creates a one-for-one federal tax credit individuals can use to lower their tax liability while at the same time providing a donation to students for private educational expenses. The program is set to begin in 2027, and states must choose to opt into it.

Here’s a breakdown of what the ECCA does:

  • Individuals can lower their tax liability by $1 for every $1 donated to accredited Scholarship-Granting Organizations (SGOs), up to $1,700 for individual filers. The SGOs must be federally recognized 501(c)(3) charity organizations. 
  • Residents of any state can take advantage of the tax credit regardless of how many states opt into the program.  
  • The SGOs must use the contribution to fund scholarships for students with family income up to 300% of the median income in their area. For example, a family in Boise, Idaho, whose median family income is $81,308, would be eligible for scholarships if they made under $244,000. 
  • The scholarships will cover a variety of educational expenses, including private school tuition, tutoring, educational therapies, transportation, and technology. In participating states, scholarships may also help cover supplemental costs for students enrolled in public schools.
  • There is no overall limit on the aggregate cost of the program. In earlier versions of the bill, the program was capped at $5 billion through 2029, with 5% annual increases thereafter.

The law does not specify a scholarship amount that students can receive through the scholarship-granting organizations. It tasks the U.S. Education Department with writing the administrative regulations that will govern the ECCA. Details yet to be filled in include state reporting requirements, the certification process for SGOs, and any guidance regarding scholarship eligibility and award amounts. 

Background

The structure of tax-credit-based school choice programs, including how families receive funding for educational expenses, can vary. Common program types include:

  • Tax-credit scholarships: Nonprofit organizations distribute scholarships to families for educational expenses. 
  • Tax-credit education savings accounts (ESAs): Scholarships are deposited into unique accounts that families can access to pay eligible educational expenses. 
  • Refundable credits: This kind of program allows parents to claim approved educational expenses back on their state taxes. If the amount they spend on those approved expenses exceeds what they owe in taxes, the state refunds them up to a set amount.  
  • Individual credit and deductions: Depending on the state or program, families can use approved educational expenses to lower the total amount they owe in taxes (credit) or reduce their taxable income (deduction). Unlike a refundable credit, families cannot receive money from the state if their expenses exceed their taxes, or they never owed taxes in the first place. 

As of June 2025, 25 states ran 38 education tax credit programs.

This federal action follows an increase in states enacting other types of school choice programs, including Educational Savings Accounts (ESAs), voucher programs, or policies allowing individuals to write off or deduct educational expenses from their personal taxes. As a result, eighteen states have enacted programs that cover all or most students, or will eventually do so. Fifteen of these states are Republican trifectas, and three have divided governments.

 Sixteen states do not have any private school choice programs in place. Twelve of these states have Democratic trifectas, two have Republican trifectas, and two have divided governments. 

Click here to read the full version of the story featuring differences between legislative versions of the ECCA and reactions to its passage. You can also click here to sign up for Hall Pass.

Click here to learn more about the budget reconciliation law, and here to learn more about private school choice in the 50 states. 

The view from the summit: What things might look like after we reach full national election coverage 

In previous columns, I’ve written about Ballotpedia’s goal of providing comprehensive coverage of all 520,000 elections in the country by 2034 and, once that’s achieved, doing it again every year thereafter.

That means we will be providing voters with robust data — everything from completed Candidate Connection Survey responses to insights on campaign spending, endorsements, pledges, and much more. All of this information will be available to every voter whenever and wherever they want. It also means having the right people at Ballotpedia — both professional staff and volunteers — as well as the technical and financial resources to make it all possible.

That sounds impressive — and it is! But I was recently asked a very good question on an episode of our podcast, On The Ballot: “If we get all of this information on all of these candidates in all of these races, would it make a difference in how people engage with politics?”

I said there are two reasons our project to reach complete and comprehensive election coverage is so important. One is a theme I’ve used before to describe how powerful technology can be in opening the political process to every voter.

It’s possible for us to drive to a town two hours away from where we live, and, if we want to know in advance where there’s a good place to get coffee while we’re there, we can pull out our phones, open an app, and find that information in a few seconds.

It should be that easy for a voter to get in-depth information about every candidate on their ballot. There’s no excuse for not having immediate access to detailed, unbiased information about the candidates who want to make the laws that govern our communities, states, and nation.

The other motivation for achieving complete nationwide election coverage comes from our interactions with local officials, including those who run elections, as well as the candidates and officeholders at the local level.

I won’t give away too much here, but we’ve conducted extensive interviews with 100 school board members across the country. One of my big takeaways from these interviews is that once the American public really gets to know about the people who run for and serve in local offices, the more likely the public is to admire them, regardless of their political ideology or party leanings. 

These officeholders are admirable in many ways. They are active participants in the great American experiment of self-governance and democracy.  

But when most of us think about politics, if we think about it at all, we rarely focus on local officeholders — the people whose decisions affect how our kids are educated, what roads get built or repaved, and how police and fire protection will be maintained. 

Instead, we think about politics at the national level, and what happens makes many people deeply dissatisfied. 

But America’s political and civic life is far greater, much richer, and far more meaningful than just what happens in Washington, D.C.

I believe people will be inspired and really enjoy getting to know the more than 500,000 people who serve the public interest right in our communities. They’re wonderful people doing the essential work that helps our communities and our nation grow and thrive. 

This is what complete, comprehensive election coverage can deliver — an informed, engaged, and healthy civic life that benefits everyone, voters and candidates alike.

Washington, D.C. council votes to fund RCV and other updates on local RCV adoption

On July 14, the Washington, D.C. council voted 8-4 to provide funding to implement ranked-choice voting (RCV) in the city’s 2026 budget. In 2024, voters approved an initiative to adopt RCV 72.9%-27.1%, among other election changes. The council added the ranked-choice voting funding to the budget after Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) did not include it in her proposed version. The council is scheduled to vote on the 2026 budget proposal a final time on July 28. 

If the council approves the budget again, Bowser will either be able to sign or veto it. Once an agreement is reached, the budget goes to Congress for approval. To learn more about that process, click here.

Seven of the United States’ other largest 100 cities use or are scheduled to use RCV for their city elections: Oakland and San Francisco, California; Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota; New York, New York; Portland, Oregon; and Seattle, Washington. D.C. was the most recent major city to opt for the system when voters approved Initiative 83 in 2024. Portland was the most recent to implement RCV, using it for city elections for the first time in 2024 after voters approved Measure 26-228 in 2022.

Among the 100 largest cities, Denver, Colorado, may be the next to opt for RCV. A bill to adopt the system advanced to the full council on July 15. The full council is scheduled to vote on the proposal on August 4. In 2024, Colorado voters rejected a statewide ballot measure 53.5% to 46.5% that would have created top-four primaries and implemented RCV for congressional and statewide elections. 

On May 14, the Boston, Massachusetts, city council voted 8-4 to approve a home rule petition to adopt RCV for city elections. That proposal awaits consideration in the state legislature and would require Gov. Maura Healey’s (D) signature.  On Feb. 22, the Arlington County, Virginia, County Board voted 4-0 to extend the county’s use of RCV for board elections.

Not all recent actions from local governments extend or expand the use of RCV. After initially approving RCV for city elections in a 3-2 vote on March 21, the Park City, Utah, city council reversed its decision and voted 3-2 on April 28 to abandon the plan. City councils in at least two other cities in Utah — Heber City and Vineyard — voted to opt out of the state’s municipal RCV pilot program. Vineyard had used RCV for local elections since 2019, and Heber City had used it since 2021. The pilot program is set to expire after the 2025 general election. Lawmakers did not act on competing proposals to extend or shorten the program in this year’s legislative session. 

Several jurisdictions that have approved the adoption of RCV are facing obstacles to implementing the system. In Austin, Texas, voters approved Proposition E 58% to 42% in 2021, but the system is still not in use, due at least in part to a 2003 advisory opinion in which Gov. Greg Abbott (R) — then the state’s attorney general — concluded that Texas state law does not allow local adoption of RCV. Elsewhere, the future of RCV in jurisdictions in Massachusetts and Michigan, where voters have opted for the system, depends on authorizing legislation from the legislature in each state. 
Click here to learn more about ranked-choice voting.