U.S. school choice tax credit scholarship program

• Education policy portal
• Featured content and analysis
  • School choice in the United States
  • School choice glossary
  • Donald Trump's executive orders on education, 2025
  • State policies on cellphone use in K-12 public schools
  • Trends in curriculum development
  • Local school board authority across the 50 states
  • U.S. school choice tax credit scholarship program

See also: State participation in the federal K-12 education tax credit program, School choice in the United States, School choice glossary, Impact of school choice on rural school districts

What is the U.S. school choice tax credit scholarship program?
The U.S. school choice tax credit scholarship is a nonrefundable tax credit enacted in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), allowing individuals to receive federal tax credits for donations up to $1,700 to authorized scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs). It is a dollar-for-dollar nonrefundable tax credit, meaning individuals can lower their federal tax liability by the amount donated to an SGO; if a taxpayer donates more than $1,700, they will not receive a refund for the amount above $1,700.

It is the first federally funded program providing public money for private educational expenses, though states are not required to participate. States that elect to participate must submit a list of SGOs that taxpayers can donate to in order to receive the federal tax credit.

Why does it matter?
This program reimburses donations made to SGOs up to $1,700 through a tax credit, decreasing federal tax revenue. The U.S. Treasury must issue regulations that will shape how the program runs, what the requirements are for participating states, or who can benefit from the program. The regulations, once issued, could affect state participation. They were pending as of December 17, 2025, though the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a notice with a request for comment on policies to implement the program on November 26, 2025. The IRS issued a notice saying states could begin electing to participate starting January 1, 2026.

What are the arguments?
Debates about the tax credit program revolve around whether or not states should opt in.

• Proponents of opting in argue that it can benefit students in all educational sectors with little to no costs to state governments, it can augment public school education, and it can provide more educational options for low-income families.
• Opponents to opting in to the program argue that it disproportionately benefits the wealthy, is unconstitutional, will be rife with fraud, and encourages resource reallocation away from public schools.

Dive deeper:
This page contains the following sections:

• How it works
  • Tax credit policies
  • Student eligibility and scholarship use policies
  • State participation policies
  • Requirements for scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs)
  • Regulations implementing the program
• Participating states
• Arguments about the U.S. school choice tax credit scholarship program
• Policy proposals
• Noteworthy events

How it works

The U.S. school choice tax credit scholarship is a nonrefundable tax credit, allowing individuals to receive federal tax credits for donations up to $1,700 to authorized scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs). It is a dollar-for-dollar nonrefundable tax credit, meaning individuals can lower their federal tax liability by $1 for every $1 donated to accredited SGOs; if a taxpayer donates more than $1,700, they will not receive a tax refund for the amount over $1,700. The total amount of credits the program can offer is not capped.

SGOs distribute the donated scholarship funds to eligible families, which can be used on a variety of private or public educational expenses, including private school tuition, tutoring services, textbooks, and more. In order to qualify for scholarships, students had to live in households earning no more than 300% of the area's median gross income and be eligible to enroll in K-12 schools. The program will take effect January 1, 2027.

States that elect to participate must submit a list of SGOs that taxpayers can donate to in order to receive the federal tax credit. Students in states that do not opt in cannot receive scholarships funded under the program, but donors in those states can still receive a federal tax credit by donating to SGOs in participating states. As enacted, the program will not affect state budgets.

Tax credit policies

Section 70411 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) created a federal, nonrefundable education tax credit scholarship program. The provisions are as follows:

• Donors can lower their federal tax liability by $1 for every $1 donated to accredited Scholarship-Granting Organizations (SGOs) up to $1,700 starting January 1, 2027. The total amount of credits the program can offer is not capped.

Student eligibility and scholarship use policies

• The scholarships would be available to families making 300% of the median income in the region. The scholarships could be used to pay private school tuition, hire tutors, and purchase textbooks and other supplies. SGOs can provide scholarships only to students in their state.
• Scholarships can be used to cover public, private, or religious education expenses, defined further in U.S. Code 530(b)(3)(A).

State participation policies

• States can elect to participate in the program; they are not required to. To participate, states must submit to the U.S. Department of the Treasury a list of the scholarship-granting organizations that meet the requirements described in the bill and are located in the state by January 1 of each year.
  • Those who can opt into the program include the governor or other individuals, agencies, or entities designated under each state's law to make elections on behalf of the state regarding federal tax benefits. When submitting a list of qualified SGOs to the U.S. Treasury Department, the submitting entity must include certification that they are qualified to opt into the program on the state's behalf.

Requirements for scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs)

The OBBBA included requirements and parameters for SGOs.

“

(d) Requirements for Scholarship Granting Organizations.— “(1) In general.—An organization meets the requirements of this subsection if— “(A) such organization provides scholarships to 10 or more students who do not all attend the same school, “(B) such organization spends not less than 90 percent of the income of the organization on scholarships for eligible students, “(C) such organization does not provide scholarships for any expenses other than qualified elementary or secondary education expenses, “(D) such organization provides a scholarship to eligible students with a priority for— “(i) students awarded a scholarship the previous school year, and “(ii) after application of clause (i), any eligible students who have a sibling who was awarded a scholarship from such organization, “(E) such organization does not earmark or set aside contributions for scholarships on behalf of any particular student, and “(F) such organization— “(i) verifies the annual household income and family size of eligible students who apply for scholarships to ensure such students meet the requirement of subsection (c)(2)(A), and “(ii) limits the awarding of scholarships to eligible students who are a member of a household for which the income does not exceed the amount established under subsection (c)(2)(A). “(2) Prohibition on self-dealing.— “(A) In general.—A scholarship granting organization may not award a scholarship to any disqualified person. “(B) Disqualified person.—For purposes of this paragraph, a disqualified person shall be determined pursuant to rules similar to the rules of section 4946.

”

Full text of the statute

The text of the statute creating the federal tax credit scholarship program is as follows:

“

SEC. 70411. TAX CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF INDIVIDUALS TO SCHOLARSHIP GRANTING ORGANIZATIONS. (a) Allowance of Credit for Contributions of Individuals to Scholarship Granting Organizations.— (1) In general.—Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by inserting after section 25E the following new section: “SEC. 25F. 26 USC 25F. QUALIFIED ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION SCHOLARSHIPS. “(a) Allowance of Credit.—In the case of an individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States (within the meaning of section 7701(a)(9)), there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the aggregate amount of qualified contributions made by the taxpayer during the taxable year. “(b) Limitations.— “(1) In general.—The credit allowed under subsection (a) to any taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed $1,700. “(2) Reduction based on state credit.—The amount allowed as a credit under subsection (a) for a taxable year shall be reduced by the amount allowed as a credit on any State tax return of the taxpayer for qualified contributions made by the taxpayer during the taxable year. “(c) Definitions.—For purposes of this section— “(1) Covered state.—The term ‘covered State’ means one of the States, or the District of Columbia, that, for a calendar year, voluntarily elects to participate under this section and to identify scholarship granting organizations in the State, in accordance with subsection (g). “(2) Eligible student.—The term ‘eligible student’ means an individual who— “(A) is a member of a household with an income which, for the calendar year prior to the date of the application for a scholarship, is not greater than 300 percent of the area median gross income (as such term is used in section 42), and “(B) is eligible to enroll in a public elementary or secondary school. “(3) Qualified contribution.—The term ‘qualified contribution’ means a charitable contribution of cash to a scholarship granting organization that uses the contribution to fund scholarships for eligible students solely within the State in which the organization is listed pursuant to subsection (g). “(4) Qualified elementary or secondary education expense.—The term ‘qualified elementary or secondary education expense’ means any expense of an eligible student which is described in section 530(b)(3)(A). “(5) Scholarship granting organization.—The term ‘scholarship granting organization’ means any organization— “(A) which— “(i) is described in section 501(c)(3) and exempt from tax under section 501(a), and “(ii) is not a private foundation, “(B) which prevents the co-mingling of qualified contributions with other amounts by maintaining one or more separate accounts exclusively for qualified contributions, “(C) which satisfies the requirements of subsection (d), and “(D) which is included on the list submitted for the applicable covered State under subsection (g) for the applicable year. “(d) Requirements for Scholarship Granting Organizations.— “(1) In general.—An organization meets the requirements of this subsection if— “(A) such organization provides scholarships to 10 or more students who do not all attend the same school, “(B) such organization spends not less than 90 percent of the income of the organization on scholarships for eligible students, “(C) such organization does not provide scholarships for any expenses other than qualified elementary or secondary education expenses, “(D) such organization provides a scholarship to eligible students with a priority for— “(i) students awarded a scholarship the previous school year, and “(ii) after application of clause (i), any eligible students who have a sibling who was awarded a scholarship from such organization, “(E) such organization does not earmark or set aside contributions for scholarships on behalf of any particular student, and “(F) such organization— “(i) verifies the annual household income and family size of eligible students who apply for scholarships to ensure such students meet the requirement of subsection (c)(2)(A), and “(ii) limits the awarding of scholarships to eligible students who are a member of a household for which the income does not exceed the amount established under subsection (c)(2)(A). “(2) Prohibition on self-dealing.— “(A) In general.—A scholarship granting organization may not award a scholarship to any disqualified person. “(B) Disqualified person.—For purposes of this paragraph, a disqualified person shall be determined pursuant to rules similar to the rules of section 4946. “(e) Denial of Double Benefit.—Any qualified contribution for which a credit is allowed under this section shall not be taken into account as a charitable contribution for purposes of section 170. “(f) Carryforward of Unused Credit.— “(1) In general.—If the credit allowable under subsection (a) for any taxable year exceeds the limitation imposed by section 26(a) for such taxable year reduced by the sum of the credits allowable under this subpart (other than this section, section 23, and section 25D), such excess shall be carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the credit allowable under subsection (a) for such taxable year. “(2) Limitation.—No credit may be carried forward under this subsection to any taxable year following the fifth taxable year after the taxable year in which the credit arose. For purposes of the preceding sentence, credits shall be treated as used on a first-in first-out basis. “(g) State List of Scholarship Granting Organizations.— “(1) List.— “(A) Deadlines. In general.—Not later than January 1 of each calendar year (or, with respect to the first calendar year for which this section applies, as early as practicable), a State that voluntarily elects to participate under this section shall provide to the Secretary a list of the scholarship granting organizations that meet the requirements described in subsection (c)(5) and are located in the State. “(B) Process.—The election under this paragraph shall be made by the Governor of the State or by such other individual, agency, or entity as is designated under State law to make such elections on behalf of the State with respect to Federal tax benefits. “(2) Certification.—Each list submitted under paragraph (1) shall include a certification that the individual, agency, or entity submitting such list on behalf of the State has the authority to perform this function. “(h) Regulations and Guidance.—The Secretary shall issue such regulations or other guidance as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the purposes of this section, including regulations or other guidance— “(1) providing for enforcement of the requirements under subsections (d) and (g), and “(2) with respect to recordkeeping or information reporting for purposes of administering the requirements of this section.” “Sec. 25F.  Qualified elementary and secondary education scholarships.”. (b) Exclusion From Gross Income for Scholarships for Qualified Elementary or Secondary Education Expenses of Eligible Students.— (1) In general.—Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 is amended by inserting before section 140 the following new section: “SEC. 139K. 26 USC 139K. SCHOLARSHIPS FOR QUALIFIED ELEMENTARY OR SECONDARY EDUCATION EXPENSES OF ELIGIBLE STUDENTS. “(a) In General.—In the case of an individual, gross income shall not include any amounts provided to such individual or any dependent of such individual pursuant to a scholarship for qualified elementary or secondary education expenses of an eligible student which is provided by a scholarship granting organization. “(b) Definitions.—In this section, the terms ‘qualified elementary or secondary education expense’, ‘eligible student’, and ‘scholarship granting organization’ have the same meaning given such terms under section 25F(c).” . (2) Conforming amendment.—The table of sections for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 26 USC prec. 101. is amended by inserting before the item relating to section 140 the following new item: “Sec. 139K.  Scholarships for qualified elementary or secondary education expenses of eligible students.”. (c) 26 USC 25 note. Effective Date.— (1) In general.—Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2026. (2) Exclusion from gross income.—The amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to amounts received after December 31, 2026, in taxable years ending after such date.

”

Regulations implementing the program

Regulations implementing the education tax credit scholarship program from the U.S. Department of the Treasury are pending as of December 17, 2025.

Notice requesting comments

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a notice with a request for comment on November 26, 2025, seeking information to help draft a proposed rule. The text of the notice is as follows:

Participating states

See also: State participation in the federal K-12 education tax credit program

This section includes details about states that have opted in and submitted a list of qualified SGOs to the U.S. Treasury, those that have officially stated their intention to opt in or out, and those that have signaled their intention for participation in the program.

States officially participating in the program

This section includes a list of states that have officially opted in to the program and submitted a list of qualified SGOs to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

As of December 17, 2025, no states have submitted a list of qualified SGOs to the U.S. Treasury.

States that have officially stated whether they will opt in or not

As of December 17, 2025, one state—Nebraska—had elected to participate in the program. The table below includes all states that have made an official move to participate in the tax credit program, whether successful or not.

Official action

State	Official action	Status	Date
Nebraska	Executive Order 25-14	Adopted	September 29, 2025
North Carolina	House Bill 87	Vetoed	August 6, 2025

Governors' statements on opting in

This section contains gubernatorial statements on their states' participation in the federal K-12 education tax credit scholarship program. These statements do not constitute official action.

Texas

• Governor Greg Abbott said on December 10, 2025, that Texas would participate in the program.

Colorado

• The Colorado Sun reported in December 2025 that Governor Jared Polis (D) said Colorado will opt into the federal education tax credit program.

South Dakota

• Argus Leader reported in November 2025 that Governor Larry Rhoden (R) said South Dakota will opt in to the federal education tax credit program.

Tennessee

• Education Week reported in August 2025 that a spokesperson for Tennessee Governor Bill Lee (R) said the state will opt into the program.

Governors' statements on not opting in

This section contains gubernatorial statements on their states' participation in the federal K-12 education tax credit scholarship program. These statements do not constitute official action.

New Mexico

• Chalkbeat reported in August 2025 that New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) said she would not opt into the program.

Oregon

• Chalkbeat reported in August 2025 that Oregon Governor Tina Kotek (D) said she would not opt into the program.

Wisconsin

• The Milkwaukee Journal Sentinel reported in September 2025 that Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers (D) said he will not opt in to the federal program. Wisconsin lawmakers said they will introduce legislation to opt into the program.

Arguments about the U.S. school choice tax credit scholarship program

This section contains arguments about the nature of the program, arguments in support of state participation, and opposition to state participation.

Arguments about the program

• The program is too expensive.

  This argument says that since there's no national financial cap on the program, it has the potential to cost up to $170 billion of federal tax revenue per year, and that is too much.

• The program reallocates federal funds from other programs that need money.

  This argument says that while the program is not directly federally funded, it allows taxpayers to reallocate where their tax money goes, and will move money away from public services that need money.

• Using federal funds to subsidize private school education could subject private schools to more regulation.

  This argument says that as more public money is used to subsidize or pay for more private schools, the less institutional autonomy private schools are likely to have.

Support for opting in to the program

This section details arguments that support state participation in the program.

• This program can provide public school students with extra resources.

  Supporters argue that since the OBBB allows scholarships to be used for public school expenses, public school students could augment their education with resources to help them succeed.

• This program allows low-income families the chance to choose a school that best fits their needs.

  Supporters argue that this program gives public funds to families who cannot afford to choose a school other than public options.

• The program does not take funds away from public schools.

  Supporters of this program say this program does not divert public state or federal funds away from education, and that it is funded by private donors. They say the only cost is lost federal income tax revenue.

• Instead of opting out of the program, those against school choice should tailor the program to benefit students they believe school choice harms.

  Supporters of this program say that while the program's opponents believe it harms low-income, Black, or Latino students, those opponents should help shape the program to best serve those students.

• Scholarships can benefit students in all educational sectors at no expense to state governments.

  Supporters of the program argue that since the federal government gets a decrease in tax revenue from this program— not state governments— states stand only to gain from the program.

• If states don't opt in, their students lose extra resources and educational opportunities.

  Supporters of this program say that while donors still receive a federal tax credit if their states don't opt in, students will not receive extra resources and opportunities that the program provides. They say that states that don't opt in only hurt their students and that not opting in deprives students of opportunities.

• Opting in to the program would help states address poor student performance

  This argument says that the federal school choice tax credit is an opportunity for states to address falling student achievement.

Opposition to opting in to the program

This section details arguments that oppose state participation in the program.

• This program disproportionately benefits the wealthy.

  Critics argue that since the program applies to families earning no more than 300% of the area's median gross income, this could include wealthy families in wealthy areas.

• This program diverts funds from public schools.

  Critics argue that by incentivizing scholarships for private school educational expenses, this program will divert funds from public schools with declining enrollment due to private options becoming accessible.

• The federal education tax credit scholarship is unconstitutional.

  Critics argue that the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government specific, enumerated powers that do not include education, and that this program constitutes federal overreach.

• The statute did not contain enough accountability measures for SGOs.

  Critics argue that the statute is vague and does not establish enough accountability measures for SGOs, and that the program will be rife with fraud as a result.

• Opting in to the program gives the federal government too much say in school choice.

  Those opposing state participation in the federal program argue that, on the surface, the program seems like it affords states flexibility in receiving more funding for school choice. They argue that by establishing requirements for SGOs, the federal government can control where the funding goes, and that it will use the program to advance social policy goals.

• The tax credit will lead to worse educational outcomes for students.

  This argument says studies show school choice programs have a detrimental impact on student academic outcomes.

Policy proposals

This section includes opinions, ideas, and commentary about how the federal education tax credit scholarship program should run.

The Treasury should maintain a consistent standard for including scholarship-granting organizations

Jorge Elorza, Chief Executive Officer of Democrats for Education Reform, argued that, when creating regulations for the federal education tax credit scholarship program, the U.S. Department of the Treasury should establish uniform federal standards to determine which SGOs may participate, so governors or states cannot recognize or exclude qualified organizations based on political considerations.

The Treasury should be flexible in program design to let SGOs support diverse educational experiences

Elorza argued that the Treasury should not impose rigid programmatic requirements that limit the ability of SGOs to meet diverse educational needs by limiting SGOs' discretion over which qualified expenses to fund, how to distribute scholarships, and what amounts to offer. He argued that American social, political, and cultural structures are shifting and that education policy must make room for reinvention.

States should be prohibited from adding their own regulations for the program

Robert Enlow, CEO of EdChoice, argued that the Treasury must prohibit states from adding or creating their own regulations for the program. He argued this could allow states to subject private and homeschoolers to state regulations. Daniel Buck and Anna Low wrote that a governor's role in creating a list of qualified SGOs should be purely administrative.

Governors must allow scholarships for educational services across all school sectors

Enlow argued that governors should not be able to limit who can receive scholarships. Enlow argued that states should be prohibited from allowing the scholarship for public school students, but not charter or private school students.

States must have maximum flexibility

Robert Luebke, Director of the Center for Effective Education in the John Locke Foundation, argued that regulators must protect state authority and provide the flexibility to administer existing programs. States must also be allowed to create a tax credit program for district and charter schools that assist students with tutoring, testing, or other services.

States must be able to add eligibility and accountability requirements

Luebke argued that states must also be able to decide accountability requirements, testing requirements, and metrics to assess academic progress for schools that enroll scholarship students. He argued that without that ability, federal regulators with less knowledge of the local landscape would fill that gap.

Regulations must protect religious freedom and institutional autonomy

Luebke argued that federal regulations must honor religious freedom and institutional autonomy, ensuring that religious schools can administer schools in ways consistent with their values and mission.

Regulations must define statutory language and establish transparency and auditing processes

Daniel Buck and Anna Low said the U.S. Treasury, when issuing regulations for the program, must further define OBBBA's language, including what it means by school, eligible student (as it relates to verifying income requirements), and authorized expenses. They said the Treasury should institute transparency requirements, definitions of fraud or waste, and auditing processes.

Regulations must make the program administratively simple

Daniel Buck and Anna Low said SGOs face many administrative hurdles when administering the program as it stands, and that the U.S. Treasury should streamline the administration of the program by:

• allowing married couples to both donate up to $1,700, even if filing jointly
• allowing OBBBA's provision requiring SGOs to spend at least 90% of their income on granting scholarships to mean that SGOs must spend up to 90% of their donations through the federal program on scholarships
• providing opt-in options on tax forms or auto-pay methods on employment paperwork

SGOs must be permitted to fulfill the 90% scholarship and 10% administration revenue spending requirements using a separate accounting structure

Jodi Grant, the Executive Director of Afterschool Alliance, said that when building regulations for the program, the Treasury should permit SGOs to fulfill the statutory requirement that 90% of revenue be spent on administering scholarships by holding separate accounts. This proposal would define 90% of revenue, as written in the OBBBA, as 90% of revenue gained from the federal tax credit specifically. Grant said that if the income of the organization included all income of the organization, including unrelated business income, and is not limited to qualified contributions in segregated accounts, many existing nonprofits or SGOs would not qualify, and only new SGOs would be able to participate.

Donors must be able to designate SGO contributions directly through their W-4

An anonymous commenter on an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) notice regarding the program said that the program poses a cashflow issue for donors who cannot afford to write an extra check of up to $1,700 for later reimbursement. They said the Treasury should allow donors to make payroll elections for donations to this program, similar to a health savings account (HSA) election. They said the elections should be treated as if they were a prepayment of federal tax for withholding purposes, meaning the amount would satisfy the required withholding, and employers could transmit the funds directly to SGOs or send them to the IRS for remittance.

Any SGO registered to do business in a state should be added to the list of eligible SGOs

The Washington State Catholic Conference (WSCC) commented on an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) notice regarding the program saying that national nonprofits that provide educational scholarships should not be required to be physically located in a state to receive donations for the program. WSCC said that if a nonprofit or SGO is registered to do business in a state, it should be included on a governor's list of qualified SGOs.

The Treasury should not implement state-level oversight requirements for SGOs

Frank O'Linn said that the Treasury and the IRS should not implement state-level SGO oversight requirements, and instead require SGOs to submit a sworn compliance affidavit saying they would uphold statutory requirements.

The Treasury should use regulations to incentivize donors to monitor and hold accountable SGOs for responsible use of donations

Andrew Gradman, a certified tax specialist, said that the program renders a donor's gift of $1,700 to an SGO more akin to a reallocation of federal funds than a donation. Gradman said this will disincentivize those giving to the program from being specific or intentional about giving to SGOs that are fiscally responsible. He recommended the Treasury use regulations to incentivize donors to monitor and hold accountable SGOs for the responsible use of donations using the following policies:

• The regulations should revise the credit from being dollar-for-dollar to instead being limited to some multiple (applicable percentage) of the contribution, which is less than 100 percent. The applicable percentage should equal the percentage of income that the SGO spent on scholarships during the year.
• Individuals must only be able to donate to SGOs within their state of residence.
• Taxpayers should not be able to receive the credit if they receive any other tax benefit, including a state law deduction.

Noteworthy events

This section includes noteworthy events related to the federal education tax credit scholarship program.

Nebraska governor opts into federal education tax credit scholarship program

Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen (R) signed Executive Order 25-14 on September 29, 2025, to opt into the federal education tax credit scholarship program. Nebraska was the first state to officially opt in to the program.

North Carolina governor vetoes bill opting into federal education tax credit scholarship program

North Carolina Governor Josh Stein (D) vetoed the Educational Choice for Children Act on August 6, 2025, which was designed to opt the state into the federal private school choice tax credit program. The North Carolina Senate passed the Educational Choice for Children Act 30-19 along party lines on July 29, 2025, with Democrats opposing it and Republicans supporting it. The North Carolina House of Representatives passed it 69-47 on July 30, 2025, with one Democrat joining all Republicans supporting it, and all other Democrats opposing it. Stein said in his veto message that he planned to opt the state into the program once the federal government issued what he called sound guidance for the program.

See also

• State participation in the federal K-12 education tax credit program
• School choice in the United States
• Impact of school choice on rural school districts