When it comes to the future of education in America, few proposals stir more passionate debate than school choice. The Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA), a federal bill introduced in Congress, aims to take that conversation to the national level by offering tax incentives to donors who fund scholarships for students attending private schools or pursuing alternative educational paths.

Supporters call it a lifeline for families trapped in underperforming school districts. Opponents say it’s a backdoor effort to defund public education. But beyond the headlines and hot takes, what is the ECCA really about — and how did we get here?

What Is the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA)?

The Educational Choice for Children Act proposes a federal tax credit program designed to increase access to private schooling and alternative education options for qualifying families. Here’s how it works:

• Tax Credits:
  Individuals and businesses would receive a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit for donations to Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs) — nonprofits that fund K-12 scholarships.
• Scholarships for Families:
  SGOs would distribute funds to eligible families, helping to cover tuition at private schools, homeschooling materials, online learning subscriptions, tutoring, and other qualifying expenses.
• Income Limits:
  Scholarships would be directed primarily at families earning 300% or less of the area median income (AMI) — targeting low- to middle-income households.
• Federal Scope:
  The bill allows for up to $10 billion per year in tax credits, making it one of the largest federal school choice initiatives ever proposed.

Timeline and Context: How Did We Get Here?

The Rise of School Choice

School choice has long been a feature of American education policy, especially at the state level. Over the last three decades, various states have implemented charter schools, voucher programs, and tax-credit scholarship systems aimed at giving families alternatives to their assigned public schools.

The Trump administration and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos championed school choice as a central education strategy, though national legislation stalled. The ECCA reflects a continuation of that agenda, with stronger bipartisan outreach and a broader umbrella of educational expenses covered.

Post-COVID Educational Disruption

The COVID-19 pandemic intensified calls for school choice. As public schools struggled with closures, virtual learning inconsistencies, and curriculum controversies, many parents turned to homeschooling, microschools, and private options. The ECCA builds on that momentum, offering families more control over how and where their children learn.

ECCA Timeline

Introduced in Congress in January 2025, the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) has steadily advanced through the legislative process. The House of Representatives passed the bill as part of a broader budget package on May 22, and it now awaits a vote in the Senate. If approved, the bill will head to the President’s desk and could take effect as early as January 2026. That means decisions with long-term consequences for public and private education funding are being made now — with potentially only weeks left before it becomes law.

Who’s Backing the ECCA — and Who’s Pushing Back?

Supporters

• Conservative lawmakers, including Sens. Bill Cassidy and Steve Daines, and Reps. Adrian Smith and Burgess Owens, have sponsored or backed the bill.
• Advocacy groups like the American Federation for Children and Heritage Action tout ECCA as a civil rights issue, arguing it empowers underserved families.
• Religious education organizations support the bill for expanding access to faith-based schooling.

Arguments in Favor of the ECCA

Supporters of the Educational Choice for Children Act argue that it fundamentally empowers parents by giving them more control over their children’s education. Rather than being limited to the public school assigned by their zip code, families would be able to explore a wider range of educational models—private, religious, online, or alternative schooling. For many, this shift represents a philosophical rebalancing, allowing families—not government bureaucracies—to make critical decisions about what learning environment best fits their child’s needs.

Another commonly cited benefit of the ECCA is its potential to promote innovation and competition within the broader educational ecosystem. Proponents believe that by introducing more educational options, traditional schools will feel pressure to improve their offerings, become more responsive to parents, and adopt new instructional methods. In this view, school choice isn’t about dismantling public education—it’s about motivating all schools, public and private, to serve students more effectively.

The ECCA also aims to target families in need, with scholarship eligibility capped at 300% of the area median income. That’s a significant threshold that includes working-class and many middle-income households—families who may earn too much to qualify for most assistance but still struggle to afford private schooling. By focusing on this income group, the bill attempts to level the playing field and expand access to educational alternatives previously reserved for wealthier families.

Finally, supporters highlight that the ECCA explicitly supports alternative learning models beyond traditional classrooms. As education evolves, so too do the ways students engage with it—through tutoring programs, homeschooling, online platforms, or hybrid environments. The bill’s broad definition of qualifying expenses reflects this modern understanding of education, making it more adaptable to families who pursue customized or nontraditional approaches to learning.

Opponents:

• Teachers’ unions and public education advocacy groups argue it undermines public school systems by shifting public resources into private hands.
• Civil rights organizations express concerns that ECCA may worsen inequality if lower-income families cannot afford to “top off” partial scholarships.
• Fiscal watchdogs raise red flags over the potential for misuse, lack of transparency, and the erosion of the tax base through expansive credits.

Arguments Against the ECCA

Critics of the ECCA raise serious concerns about public funding and private accountability. Although the bill funds scholarships through private donations in exchange for tax credits, opponents argue this still constitutes a loss of federal revenue—public money by another name. These diverted funds support private educational systems that are not subject to the same transparency or oversight requirements as public schools, raising questions about equity and public interest.

There is also a risk of inequity in how the scholarships might be distributed. Even with income restrictions in place, families who already live in more affluent areas—or have more time and resources to navigate complex application processes—may disproportionately benefit from these programs. Without careful monitoring and outreach, critics worry that the system could reinforce existing disparities, rather than close them.

A major point of contention is that the ECCA could undermine public schools, particularly those in low-income or rural areas that already operate on thin budgets. As students and funds are redirected to private institutions, public schools may lose critical resources, compounding challenges like staffing shortages, aging infrastructure, and limited extracurricular programming. Opponents argue that improving public schools—not diverting resources from them—should be the federal government’s priority.

Lastly, the bill opens the door to potential fraud and misuse, a concern underscored by past scandals in state-level voucher and tax credit programs. Without robust federal oversight and standardized accountability measures, some Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs) may operate with little transparency or even mismanage funds. Critics argue that this undermines both the effectiveness of the program and public trust in how education dollars are handled.

What’s Next?

The ECCA has been introduced in both chambers of Congress, but it faces an uncertain path. While support for school choice is strong among many Republicans — and growing in certain Democratic constituencies — its scope and cost make it a potential sticking point in budget negotiations.

If passed, ECCA would mark a major shift in federal education policy, expanding the school choice movement nationally and reconfiguring how families access educational opportunities.