A question on many Illinois primary election ballots asks about Trump's new school tax credit. What is it?

In the upcoming primary elections, many Illinois counties will vote on an advisory referendum about President Trump’s new education tax credit. Because it is nonbinding, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker would still have to opt into the federal program. WNIJ education reporter Peter Medlin spoke with Northern Illinois University education professor Alexios Rosario-Moore to help explain it.

Peter Medlin (PM): The referendum reads, "Should Illinois opt into a federal program that would provide public K-12, private school and homeschool students with privately donated funds for academic needs such as tutoring and test preparation, educational therapies for students with disabilities, tuition, books, exam fees or other specified academic needs?"

I think a lot of people read that and think, 'Well, if they're privately donated funds and they're going to everyone, who cares? Why not?' But does the language of this referendum accurately describe how the program works? What should people know?

Alexios Rosario-Moore (ARM): People should know that this is part of the Education Freedom Tax Credit, which was included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The program provides dollar-for-dollar tax credits to taxpayers who are willing to donate up to $1,700 to scholarship-granting organizations. Those funds then can be used toward expenses for private-, public- or homeschooled students whose families make up to 300% of the local median income.

So, in a city like Chicago, for example, that would mean families making about $233,000 or less would potentially have access to scholarships and funds from these scholarship-granting organizations. But that $1,700 would have been going toward federal revenue intended for the public good, for programs that serve all citizens and are not restrictive.

I think that’s what people should understand about it. You’re making a donation that then will be managed by organizations that haven’t been clearly defined in the statute. That money would not go toward the budget. It would not, for example, go toward Title I funds managed by the U.S. Department of Education that go to low-income schools.

(PM): What is a scholarship-granting organization?

(ARM): It's not clear from the statute. It’s not clear whether the U.S. Department of Education is going to identify those nonprofits, whether they are existing organizations in states that opt in or whether those nonprofits will be newly created, perhaps by other donors.

I have concerns that a federal agency — in this case, the U.S. Department of Education — that's shedding its budget and shedding its staff has the capacity to run a program of this scope and is essentially contracting out the work of identifying and ensuring people qualify for these scholarships and distributing the money. What proportion of that money can go toward the administration of those nonprofits? None of that is clear, and it seems to be creating more bureaucracy than it would reduce.

(PM): Illinois' largest teachers union and some public school advocates say that the program would effectively drain tax dollars for public education and send it to private schools. Is that fair? How could this potentially affect funding for public education?

(ARM): It's draining tax revenue. We may not be able to draw a direct line between the loss of this tax revenue and the potential impact on Title I funds, for example, but we can recognize that the head of the U.S. Department of Education, Linda McMahon, is one of the few agency heads in the history of this country intent on reducing funding and limiting her organization’s ability to manage its resources.

(PM): The referendum says the program would donate funds to public school students as well. Do we know how that would work and how the money would be distributed? Is it based on these scholarship-granting organizations that get approved for it?

(ARM): We don’t know what criteria those organizations would have to meet in order to opt into the program. We don't know what resources they would be provided to manage it. We don't know what criteria they would set. The statute does allow room, potentially, for these scholarship-granting organizations to create the criteria for who would receive the funds.

Ultimately, part of the program's purpose is for funds to go toward private schools that may or may not admit all students and religious schools that may or may not be willing to admit and serve all students. That's problematic.

Peter Medlin

(PM): This program is the first of its kind at the federal level. How big of a deal is this for private schools and the larger school choice movement?

(ARM): This is significant because it's kind of the replacement scheme or policy for vouchers. Vouchers were found to be illegal or unconstitutional in at least one state, Washington, and also became politically unpopular. So, I see this as part of that larger history, as a new effort to move public funds into private organizations.

Now, do I think it will make a difference for private or religious schools that may be struggling and whose missions are legitimate and may provide high-quality education? I don’t think so. I don’t think it will operate at the scale and efficiency necessary to support those schools. If it is unlikely to function and meet its goals, then it is not evidence-based and is largely ideological.

(PM): This is just an advisory referendum. It's not binding. Gov. J.B. Pritzker would have to opt in regardless of how these referendums turn out in individual counties. But if he does not opt Illinois into the program, residents could still receive the tax benefits, but the money would not go to scholarship-granting organizations or schools in Illinois. Is that correct?

(ARM): Yeah. If Illinois does not opt in, taxpayers can still make the up-to-$1,700 donation and receive the tax credit, but the funds would be used in other states that have opted in. Which states and how funds would be redistributed are not specified in the statute.

(PM): Is there anything else that you think is crucial to this that we haven't talked about?

(ARM): I'm concerned many of these efforts are framed as empowering families over their children's education. That messaging can be misleading. I'm a parent — my daughter is in third grade. As parents, we should think about the individual benefits and choices we make for our children's education, but we also have to remember we are part of a larger community.

When schools are well-resourced and well-funded and teachers are well-trained, it benefits everyone — the local community and society as a whole. That is a democratic tradition that has existed in this country for at least a century, and we should recognize and support it.

Copy Edited by Eryn Lent