Dear Matzav Inbox,
There is a growing wave of excitement surrounding the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA), but much of that enthusiasm feels wildly out of proportion to what the program will actually deliver. Once the details are examined, it becomes clear that this is being sold as a breakthrough when, in reality, it is a limited initiative.
Sorry to burst everyone’s bubble.
These are not school vouchers.
ECCA will not pay people’s tuition.
It’s a tax credit.
So let’s take a look at this tax credit.
Start with who actually benefits. This is the main point. The income cap—set at 300 percent of the poverty level—means that many frum middle-income families, the very ones struggling most with tuition, will likely be shut out. A “frum middle-income family” usually earns more than the average American middle-income family, because we need more to live. These are families who earn too much to qualify for assistance but nowhere near enough to comfortably pay private school tuition. For them, ECCA offers nothing.
Even for those who do qualify, the numbers don’t add up. A maximum benefit of $1,700 is a small percentage of the cost of tuition. Most parents are paying at least 4 or 5 times that amount per child. Calling this meaningful relief is misleading at best. It does not meaningfully change the financial reality for families drowning in tuition bills.
Thirdly, an important point is that while 27 states have already opted in to the program, only one Democratic governor, Jared Polis of Colorado, has opted in so far. New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s support, which you reported on last week, may help encourage other states to opt in. But as of now, it is no guarantee.
Then there is the inevitable market response. If schools know that parents are receiving additional funds—even modest ones—there is a strong incentive to raise tuition accordingly. We have seen this dynamic play out in other sectors. Subsidies often lead to price increases. I’ve spoken to several school administrators. They openly admitted this to be the case. Instead of easing the burden, ECCA could simply shift it, leaving parents no better off than before.
There are other weaknesses in this program. I’ll let others chime in with them.
But let’s slow down on the celebrations. Seriously.
The bottom line and the point of this letter is that ECCA is being presented as a sweeping solution to the tuition crisis. It is not. It is a modest, complicated, and uncertain program that risks creating more expectations than it can possibly fulfill. Instead of celebrating prematurely, we should be asking harder questions about whether this is real relief—or just the appearance of it.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Parent
To submit a letter to appear on Matzav.com, email [email protected]
DON’T MISS OUT! Join the Matzav Status by CLICKING HERE. Join the Matzav WhatsApp Groups by CLICKING HERE.
The opinions expressed in letters on Matzav.com do not necessarily reflect the stance of the Matzav Media Network.
Kvetch, kvetch, Kvetch- nobody said it’s perfect. They said it will help some people and it will bring more money into the system. So please say thank you to H-shm for everything and He will send more good
You are only partially correct. It is not a voucher and will offer very limited help for our parents.
Most of our parents however will qualify, as the thresh hold is between $300-500,000 depending on size of family.
The $1,700 is not a deduction or credit towards tuition. It is a credit on the federal taxes for those that wish to “donate” this money. Of course one can donate much more than that, but will not get a tax credit.
All the people that do “donate” their $1,700 to a SGO – those funds, or parts of it, can be given out to parents and schools. So you are correct that it doesn’t add up to a lot of money to distribute.
Yet, it is a gift towards education, as all the $1,700 donations are coming out of tax money that the “donor” would have paid anyway (no reason that all people should not “donate” this amount), and most of the money given through our community’s SGOs will benefit some parents in some way.
I have watched this program since its inception and this is how I understand it in its present form (the original one was way better – alas we didn’t get it).
I believe you missed the point here.
the point is not to give a tax credit to parents to pay tuition.
it is to get the masses of people out there to donate, get a tax credit, and then form an organization to funnel all of those donations to schools, to offset tuition.
read it all again.
If schools get more money, that also helps. Rebbeim and teachers are woefully underpaid.
This tax credit is Dollar for Dollar. So, any business or person eligible has not much risk to give a $1700 donation to a tuition scholarship organization b/c they would be paying it anyway to the government. Repeat: DOLLAR for DOLLAR TAX CREDIT.
Uncle Baruch, Aunti Peril, the small business at the corner. All of these people that don’t have kids in any school can donate without hurting their purse b/c it is Dollar for Dollar tax credit.
When a community joins in, it can significantly raise money from the multitude to fund the schools.
It’s a small relief, but it opens a door to potentially greater relief.
I believe the original design of the program (which did not make it to the final bill) was for an unlimited dollar-for-dollar tax credit for SGOs. This would create an incentive for large corporations and individuals with high tax liabilities to give to scholarship organizations rather than paying taxes.
The way it’s structured now will barely provide any relief at all, especially considering that many schools are charging less tuition than their actual costs.
I think the point its a plus to the schools where grand parents and relatives can all give the 1700 to get the dollar for dollar credit so its a free donation and the schools can make more money hopefully helping with the budget
Sure, it’s not the be all and end all, but it’s a good first step.
Even qualified parents don’t donate money directly to their schools, but rather to specific designated organizations that will be authorized to distribute funds to schools (they can earmark their donations for a specific school).
The idea is that if middle-class families (who do qualify) along with young couples and/or grandparents who may not be paying tuition at their stage, yet choose to donate to these organizations at no net cost to them, as they will receive a tax credit up to $1,700 annually, that could theoretically create a large enough pool to help offset some of the schools expenses, which should translate to some relief for parents.
I agree that this is quite optimistic, and the school administrators need to have their feet held to the fire in order for us to see any improvement.
The fight for decades was to get any type of school choice bill passed into law (over the objections of the teacher’s union). Once it’s on the books, lobbying efforts can shift to increasing the annual cap, or the income qualifications.
Many people you know don’t have kids in school any more. Ask them to send $1,700 of their tax obligation to your school. It cover’s $1,700 from their tax obligation cleanly and you deduct $1,700 for your tax obligation. The more people you find the less tuition you’ll have to pay. Sounds sweet to me!
Agree.