‘Title I for rich kids’ and other predictions for the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit

This post was updated on Oct.

这篇文章于十月更新。

16, 2026, to reflect the current number of states that have signaled their intention to opt in and to clarify which states are included.

2026 年 12 月 16 日，以反映目前已表示有意选择加入的国家数量，并澄清包括哪些国家。

On Oct.

十月号

1, the Treasury Department released its proposed regulations for the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit (FSTC).

1 月 1 日，财政部发布了联邦奖学金税收抵免 (FSTC) 的拟议法规。

That marks the informal kickoff of a high-stakes period of decisionmaking for state leaders who have not decided whether their states will participate in the program.

这标志着尚未决定所在州是否参与该计划的国家领导人的高风险决策期的非正式开始。

The FSTC is a new funding mechanism that diverts federal tax dollars to families to pay for private school tuition or other eligible educational expenses.

FSTC 是一种新的筹资机制，它将联邦税款转移给家庭，用于支付私立学校的学费或其他符合条件的教育费用。

The basic idea is that individuals can receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit if they give up to $1,700 per year to a scholarship granting organization (SGO).

其基本理念是，如果个人每年向奖学金授予组织 (SGO) 捐赠最多 1,700 美元，则可以获得同等金额的税收抵免。

SGOs then distribute most of that money to families—after taking a 10% cut for themselves—with broad latitude over who gets money, how much they get, and what they can spend the money on.

然后，SGO 将大部分资金分配给家庭（在为自己扣除 10% 后），对于谁能得到钱、得到多少钱以及可以把钱花在什么方面，SGO 拥有广泛的自由度。

Each state must decide by Jan.

每个州必须在一月之前做出决定。

1 whether to opt into the FSTC for 2027.

1 是否选择加入 2027 年 FSTC。

About 31 states have signaled they will, including nearly every Republican-led state and a few led by Democrats.

大约 31 个州已表示愿意，其中包括几乎所有共和党领导的州和少数民主党领导的州。

For most of the others, it’s a hard choice.

对于其他大多数人来说，这是一个艰难的选择。

On the one hand, there’s plenty to dislike about the FSTC.

一方面，FSTC 有很多令人不喜欢的地方。

On the other hand, opting out means that a state’s residents will not have access to funds available to residents elsewhere.

另一方面，选择退出意味着一个州的居民将无法获得其他地方的居民可用的资金。

I’ve been very critical of the FSTC, though I’ve acknowledged that the question of whether this is good policy is distinct from the question of whether states should opt in.

我一直对 FSTC 持批评态度，尽管我承认这是否是好政策的问题与各州是否应该选择加入的问题不同。

That left room for the unlikely scenario that Treasury, through its regulations, would allow state leaders to mold this program to align with their states’ needs and values.

这就为一种不太可能发生的情况留下了空间，即财政部通过其规定，允许各州领导人制定该计划，以符合各州的需求和价值观。

We now have Treasury’s proposed regulations, and it’s clear they will offer state leaders no such opportunity.

我们现在已经有了财政部拟议的法规，很明显它们不会为国家领导人提供这样的机会。

Despite this administration’s emphasis on “returning education to the states,” state leaders have virtually no control over this program after deciding whether they will participate.

尽管本届政府强调“教育回归各州”，但州领导人在决定是否参与后实际上无法控制该计划。

They can’t stop an SGO from refusing to serve children of a certain religion, disability status, or sexual orientation.

他们无法阻止 SGO 拒绝为特定宗教、残疾状况或性取向的儿童提供服务。

They can’t require SGOs to prioritize students in need.

他们不能要求 SGO 优先考虑有需要的学生。

They can’t condition an SGO’s continued operation on evidence of strong performance.

他们不能以良好表现作为 SGO 持续运营的条件。

In effect, governors have an all-or-nothing decision: Opt in and see what happens or stay out.

实际上，州长们有一个全有或全无的决定：选择加入，看看会发生什么，或者不参与。

As we await those decisions, I have a few predictions for where this might go.

在我们等待这些决定时，我对事情的走向有一些预测。

Perhaps the most striking element of Treasury’s proposed regulations wasn’t a regulation but a projection.

也许财政部拟议法规中最引人注目的部分不是法规，而是预测。

Treasury estimates that the FSTC will grow to a $26 billion program by 2030, and that’s assuming that only 30 states participate.

财政部估计，到 2030 年，FSTC 计划的规模将扩大到 260 亿美元，而且这是假设只有 30 个州参与的情况。

For context, that’s much larger than both Title I-A ($18.4 billion in fiscal year 2025 ) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( $15.4 billion in fiscal year 2025 ).

就背景而言，这比 Title I-A（2025 财年为 184 亿美元）和《残疾人教育法案》（2025 财年为 154 亿美元）要大得多。

I don’t know if it’s possible to make accurate projections for this program’s size four years out, since I’m expecting major twists and turns before then.

我不知道是否有可能对四年后该计划的规模做出准确的预测，因为我预计在此之前会出现重大的曲折。

(More on that below.) However, if the FSTC grows near that size, it could mark a stunning reversal of the federal government’s decadeslong approach to K-12 funding, which has been to provide supplemental funds to students in need.

（更多内容见下文。）然而，如果 FSTC 增长到接近这一规模，则可能标志着联邦政府数十年来对 K-12 资助的方针的惊人逆转，即向有需要的学生提供补充资金。

The reason: The FSTC is structured in a way that makes it very likely that wealthy kids will benefit disproportionately.

原因是：FSTC 的结构使得富有的孩子很可能会获得不成比例的受益。

That begins with the near-certainty that private school students— roughly one-tenth of all U.S. students and, on average, from relatively high-income families —will collect far more than 10%of FSTC funds.

首先，几乎可以肯定的是，私立学校的学生（大约占美国学生总数的十分之一，平均来自收入相对较高的家庭）将获得远远超过 FSTC 资金 10% 的资金。

The motivation to pursue FSTC funds seems much clearer for tuition-paying private school families (and their schools) than for public school families.

对于支付学费的私立学校家庭（及其学校）来说，寻求 FSTC 资金的动机似乎比公立学校家庭更明确。

Even among public school families, those in affluent areas are much better situated to obtain funds than those in poor areas.

即使在公立学校家庭中，富裕地区的家庭也比贫困地区的家庭更容易获得资金。

My colleagues and I recently analyzed where the potential donors to this program live and what we can learn from giving patterns to state programs.

我和我的同事最近分析了该计划的潜在捐助者住在哪里，以及我们可以从为国家计划提供模式中学到什么。

We project that the wealthiest counties will generate several times as much FSTC funding per child as the poorest counties.

我们预计，最富裕的县为每个儿童提供的 FSTC 资金将是最贫困县的数倍。

These poorer counties generally have less tax liability, less disposable income, fewer private school students, and fewer resources to dedicate to navigating confusing tax policies.

这些较贫困的县通常纳税义务较少，可支配收入较少，私立学校的学生较少，用于处理混乱的税收政策的资源也较少。

To be clear, taxpayers in wealthy communities could donate to SGOs that serve low-income students.

需要明确的是，富裕社区的纳税人可以向为低收入学生服务的 SGO 捐款。

However, that would defy typical giving patterns and seems especially unlikely now that the FSTC is largely being pitched by advocates as a strategy to benefit one’s own family, school, district, or community.

然而，这将违背典型的捐赠模式，而且现在似乎尤其不可能，因为 FSTC 在很大程度上被倡导者宣传为一种造福于自己的家庭、学校、地区或社区的策略。

It seems much likelier that we come to see the FSTC as a Title I for rich kids than a source of redistributive, charitable giving.

我们似乎更有可能将 FSTC 视为富家子弟的第一章，而不是再分配、慈善捐赠的来源。

Treasury’s proposed regulations reflect concerns about the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse (WFA) and some sensible attempts to curtail it.

财政部拟议的法规反映了对潜在浪费、欺诈和滥用（WFA）的担忧以及一些遏制这种行为的明智尝试。

For example, the proposed regulations create a pathway for SGOs to submit payments directly to schools without passing through families’ hands first.

例如，拟议的法规为 SGO 提供了一条直接向学校提交付款的途径，而无需先经过家庭的处理。

There’s an important point about WFA, though, that has been largely missing from the discussion of private school choice programs.

不过，关于 WFA 有一个重要的观点，在私立学校选择项目的讨论中很大程度上被忽略了。

There’s illegal WFA and there’s legal WFA.

有非法的WFA，也有合法的WFA。

Illegal WFA is unambiguously a problem.

非法WFA无疑是一个问题。

That’s families or SGOs embezzling funds or using them in ways that aren’t allowed by the FSTC.

这是指家庭或 SGO 挪用资金或以 FSTC 不允许的方式使用资金。

We’re still waiting for specific guidance from Treasury on the FSTC’s eligible expenses, but it’s safe to assume it won’t be okay to spend taxpayer money on luxury hotel stays, condoms, and lingerie (items that appear in records for Arizona’s ESA program).

我们仍在等待财政部关于 FSTC 合格费用的具体指导，但可以肯定的是，不能将纳税人的钱花在豪华酒店住宿、避孕套和内衣（出现在亚利桑那州 ESA 计划记录中的项目）上。

Preventing even this type of illegal WFA will be a real challenge with billions of dollars sloshing through a web of lightly vetted SGOs, providers, and recipients.

即使是防止这种类型的非法 WFA 也将是一项真正的挑战，因为数十亿美元在经过严格审查的 SGO、提供者和接收者网络中流动。

But the FSTC is so permissive that there’s plenty of room within the bounds of the law for spending that almost any reasonable person would consider wasteful.

但 FSTC 过于宽松，以至于在法律范围内有足够的空间用于支出，几乎任何理性的人都会认为这是浪费。

That’s the legal WFA.

这就是合法的 WFA。

As far as I can tell, there’s still nothing that would prevent an SGO from setting up shop in an affluent community, raising money locally, and then awarding scholarships of, say, $100,000 apiece to ten affluent families—with instructions to use those funds to pay a preferred local tutor.

据我所知，仍然没有什么可以阻止 SGO 在富裕社区开设商店，在当地筹集资金，然后向 10 个富裕家庭每人颁发 10 万美元的奖学金，并指示使用这些资金支付首选的当地导师。

Maybe that’s just waste and abuse (not fraud) if it doesn’t cross the line into illegality, but it’s certainly not good.

如果没有越过非法的界限，也许这只是浪费和滥用（不是欺诈），但这肯定不好。

The first year of the FSTC could be very messy.

FSTC 的第一年可能会非常混乱。

Reporters have had a field day covering wasteful spending in state voucher programs, and the FSTC will provide no shortage of material.

记者们对州代金券计划中的浪费开支进行了实地考察，FSTC 将提供不缺的材料。

In fact, the FSTC is more permissive than most state programs—and far exceeds the reach of any single state program.

事实上，FSTC 比大多数州计划更加宽松，并且远远超出任何单一州计划的范围。

We should expect a steady stream of reporting on wasteful spending and fraudulent behaviors.

我们应该期待源源不断的关于浪费开支和欺诈行为的报告。

We also should expect stories about FSTC funds being used at institutions that openly discriminate against certain groups of students.

我们还应该期待有关 FSTC 资金被用于公开歧视某些学生群体的机构的报道。

Governors who enroll their states in the FSTC can’t prevent SGOs from refusing to serve, say, students of a certain religion or disability status—or children of same-sex parents.

将本州纳入 FSTC 的州长无法阻止 SGO 拒绝为具有某种宗教信仰或残疾状况的学生或同性父母的孩子等服务。

Governors who opt out for 2027 could learn from their peers who opt in, without having these messy stories land on their own doorstep.

选择退出 2027 年的州长可以向选择加入的同行学习，而不会让这些混乱的故事落在自己家门口。

Some FSTC proponents have a straightforward prediction for how this will play out.

一些 FSTC 支持者对这将如何发展有一个简单的预测。

As residents of blue states start asking why they can’t get their fair share of FSTC funds, more Democratic governors will opt in.

随着蓝色州的居民开始询问为什么他们无法获得公平份额的 FSTC 资金，更多的民主党州长将选择加入。

And since it’s hard, politically, to take away benefits once they’re available, we’re on a one-way street to long-term, universal participation.

由于一旦获得福利就很难在政治上取消，因此我们正走在一条通向长期、普遍参与的单行道上。

I don’t know.

我不知道。

I think the FSTC’s political story is a long way from being written.

我认为 FSTC 的政治故事距离被书写还有很长的路要走。

Consider some of the variables involved:

考虑一些涉及的变量：

First, there’s the public narrative surrounding the FSTC.

首先是围绕 FSTC 的公众叙述。

This is a confusing policy that isn’t on the radar of most Americans (and might never be).

这是一项令人困惑的政策，大多数美国人都没有注意到（而且可能永远不会）。

It’s entirely possible that a barrage of negative stories will batter the FSTC’s public image and lead to widespread calls for reform.

一连串的负面报道完全有可能损害 FSTC 的公众形象并引发广泛的改革呼声。

It’s also possible that more Democrats will see opposition to private school choice—and support for public schools—as a potent political issue.

也有可能更多的民主党人会将反对私立学校选择和支持公立学校视为一个潜在的政治问题。

Jennifer Berkshire and Jessica Grose have made this case, with each pointing to Gina Hinojosa’s gubernatorial campaign in Texas as a potential narrative changer.

詹妮弗·伯克希尔 (Jennifer Berkshire) 和杰西卡·格罗斯 (Jessica Grose) 提出了这一观点，两人都指出吉娜·伊诺霍萨 (Gina Hinojosa) 在德克萨斯州的州长竞选可能会改变叙事。

Second, there’s the complex and evolving set of actors involved.

其次，涉及的参与者复杂且不断变化。

The FSTC will make SGOs major players in the education landscape, with control of potentially billions of dollars in public funds and wide discretion over where they go.

FSTC 将使 SGO 成为教育领域的主要参与者，控制潜在的数十亿美元的公共资金，并对其去向拥有广泛的自由裁量权。

And the politics surrounding SGOs that serve public schools could get especially complex.

围绕为公立学校服务的 SGO 的政治可能会变得尤其复杂。

There are proposals for public schools to work together—and with large employers—to raise money for a statewide SGO that redistributes funds back to school districts.

有人建议公立学校与大型雇主合作，为全州范围内的 SGO 筹集资金，将资金重新分配回学区。

But will the districts that raise the most money really be okay with their residents’ donations funding other districts?

但筹集最多资金的地区真的会同意其居民的捐款资助其他地区吗？

Third, there’s the changing nature of partisan control of Washington.

第三，华盛顿的党派控制性质发生了变化。

If Democrats gain control of Congress and/or the White House over the next couple of years, they’ll look to make changes.

如果民主党在未来几年内获得国会和/或白宫的控制权，他们将寻求做出改变。

Maybe a Democratic administration would rewrite the FSTC regulations to give states more control over SGOs.

也许民主党政府会重写 FSTC 法规，赋予各州对 SGO 的更多控制权。

Maybe a Democratic president and Congress would fundamentally change the FSTC through their own budget reconciliation bill.

也许民主党总统和国会会通过他们自己的预算协调法案从根本上改变 FSTC。

Or maybe they’d just kill it, as most Senate Democrats are already attempting to do.

或者也许他们会直接杀死它，就像大多数参议院民主党人已经在尝试做的那样。

There are just a lot of unknowns.

还有很多未知数。

But in the spirit of making predictions, here’s mine: A hypothetical Democratic president and Congress in 2029 would repeal the FSTC entirely and give that money to families in the form of an expanded child tax credit (CTC).

但本着做出预测的精神，我的预测是：假设的民主党总统和国会将在 2029 年完全废除 FSTC，并以扩大儿童税收抵免 (CTC) 的形式将这笔钱发放给家庭。

That provides an even more flexible use of funds.

这使得资金的使用更加灵活。

Plus, when Congress expanded the CTC in 2021, the child poverty rate promptly plummeted —before bouncing right back up when the expansion lapsed.

此外，当国会在 2021 年扩大 CTC 范围时，儿童贫困率迅速下降，然后在扩大失败后又迅速回升。

These next few months will be interesting, and one can imagine the FSTC going in a lot of different directions.

接下来的几个月将会很有趣，人们可以想象 FSTC 会朝着很多不同的方向发展。

Unfortunately, it’s only getting harder to see it going in a direction that provides better and more equitable opportunities to America’s students.

不幸的是，看到它朝着为美国学生提供更好、更公平机会的方向发展只会变得越来越困难。