
Ahead of key Supreme Court arguments, here's which states have passed school choice measures
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider the establishment of the nation's first religious charter school next week, a case that could have key implications for school choice across the country.
A huge majority of states have implemented some form of school choice in recent years, but only a little more than a dozen have adopted programs that make private school choice universally available to K-12 students.
Here is the full list and a timeline of the school choice movement in recent years.
Alabama passed its CHOOSE Act in 2024, which establishes an education savings account (ESA) that will soon be open to all families in the state.
Arizona became the first state to offer universal school choice for all families in 2022, launching an $800 million program that gives parents $7,000 to put toward their children's tuition.
Arkansas's S.B. 294 established choice programs open to all students, regardless of income or disability status.
The accounts allow families to spend state money not just on tuition but also on other approved expenses, such as tutoring, online courses and instructional materials.
Florida's H.B. 1, passed in 2023, established choice programs open to all students, regardless of income or disability status.
The accounts allow families to spend state money not just on tuition but also on other approved expenses, such as tutoring, online courses and instructional materials.
Idaho launched its first private school choice program through a refundable tax credit. Families can receive up to $5,000 per child for private educational expenses, with $7,500 available for students with disabilities. The program is capped at $50 million annually and prioritizes families earning up to 300% of the federal poverty level (about $96,450 for a family of four).
Iowa's H.F. 68, passed in 2023, established choice programs open to all students, regardless of income or disability status.
The accounts allow families to spend state money not just on tuition but also on other approved expenses, such as tutoring, online courses and instructional materials.
The Indiana Choice Scholarship Program grants a voucher to qualifying K-12 students that they can put toward private school tuition.
In order to qualify, students must be residents of Indiana and a member of a household that makes an "annual income of not more than 400% of the amount to qualify for the federal free and reduced price lunch program."
Montana has two major school choice programs, but only one of them is universally available. The more restricted program is a standard ESA, but students must have special needs or have some other form of disability in order to qualify.
The more expansive program is a statewide tax credit scholarship program that "allows individuals and corporations to claim a 100% tax credit for contributions to approved Student Scholarship Organizations," according to EdChoice.
The average scholarship value for participating students is $2,190.
North Carolina has a major voucher program that is available to all students across the state, but is limited by a budget cap.
Qualifying students will get an average voucher value of $5,701 to put toward private school tuition costs, transportation, equipment or other costs associated with attending school.
After baseline qualifications are met, vouchers are granted based on household income.
Ohio's school choice program awards $6,166 for grades K–8 and $8,408 for grades 9-12 to qualifying students.
Students must meet one of a series of qualifications in order to receive the award, and parents must submit their income information.
Like Montana, Oklahoma employs a tax credit system to allow for school choice in the state.
"The Oklahoma Parental Choice Tax Credit provides parents of students in private school with a refundable tax credit ranging from a minimum of $5,000 up to a maximum of $7,500 per child to cover the cost of private school tuition and fees, or it provides parents of students in home school a refundable tax credit of $1,000 to cover the cost of unbundled educational expenses," according to EdChoice.
Tennessee passed the Education Freedom Act of 2025, creating a universal ESA program. Families receive $7,000 per student, which must first be used for tuition but can also cover other educational expenses. The program starts with 20,000 scholarships, with half reserved for students from families earning up to 300% of the free and reduced-price lunch threshold and students with disabilities. If at least 75% of scholarships are awarded, the cap will rise to 25,000 students in 2026.
Utah's H.B. 215, passed in 2023, established choice programs open to all students, regardless of income or disability status.
The accounts allow families to spend state money not just on tuition but also on other approved expenses, such as tutoring, online courses and instructional materials.
West Virginia employs an ESA program to allow universal school choice for private schools, and it also has "intra-district and inter-district public school choice via open enrollment," according to EdChoice.
The ESA program grants an average of $4,299 toward private school tuition costs.
Wyoming passed HB 199 in 2025, expanding its ESA program by removing income restrictions and making it fully universal starting in 2025-26. Renamed the Steamboat Legacy Scholarship, the program will provide families with $7,000 and be funded through a $30 million appropriation. Participating students must be assessed on academic progress.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
9 hours ago
- The Hill
In its war against small farmers, Congress says the quiet part out loud
It's never been clearer where the loyalties of congressional agriculture committees lie. In their seemingly endless quest to shift prosperity from small farmers to large ones — to erode any protections for animals and producers that actually value organic farming — the House-passed budget reconciliation plan plants a flag firmly in the realm of 'profits over people.' The plan cuts nearly $300 billion in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP benefits to support (in the amount of about $60 billion) industrial agriculture operations. This is on top of the existing $180 billion projected in future subsidies for programs like Agricultural Risk Coverage, Price Loss Coverage and crop insurance. That goes without mentioning the $10 billion recently allocated to big agriculture through the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program, which an American Enterprise Institute report called 'probably not justified.' That's a lot of bacon going disproportionately to America's largest producers. At the same time, congressional agriculture committees are promising to override state and local regulations that protect small farmers, as well as set basic humane agriculture standards. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) has introduced the Food Security and Farm Protection Act — formerly known as the EATS Act — to override any state law that 'affects' an out-of-state producer. Directly in her crosshairs are laws like California's Proposition 12, which sets humane welfare standards for farm animals. That ballot measure, which voters approved in 2018, was the single biggest win for the meek and miserable farm animals who feed us. It was the result of legislative decision-making that the U.S. Supreme Court has already deemed perfectly constitutional. It also created more demand for animal products sourced from farms employing more traditional husbandry practices — i.e., smaller ones. The biggest problem for rank-and-file farmers is that the Food Security and Farm Protection Act is vague enough that it could be used to disrupt or derail any state or local agricultural regulation that companies with the means deem inconvenient. That includes, notably, procurement regulations that may favor local producers. According to a study from Harvard, there are more than 100 food and agricultural procurement laws already on the books. In Louisiana, for example, procurement officials are required to purchase agricultural goods from Louisiana unless out-of-state goods are both cheaper and of higher quality. This would likely qualify as a 'standard or condition on the preharvest production of … agricultural products' that would fall under the Food Security and Farm Protection Act's broad scythe. Ernst's effort is no outlier. The House Agriculture Committee said that the new farm bill would prevent states from passing animal welfare regulations that others must follow. They are no doubt talking about the Food Security and Farm Protection Act — and, again, it's going to have the effect of overriding state sovereignty not just on the animal protection front but in all areas under the penumbra of state farming policy. Some commentators have couched the Food Security and Farm Protection Act as an affront to federalism — but, really, all of this activity amounts to an outright fight against small farmers, particularly those interested in something different than the status-quo of factory farmed, chemical- and antibiotics-ridden, steroid-pumped franken-food. Consider that the Trump administration already axed two programs giving food banks and schools $1 billion in funding to purchase from small farmers and ranchers. And they want to put the kibosh on $754 million for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, which assists farmers with resilience efforts and reduced chemical use. Make America Healthy Again (MAHA)? More like 'HAHA.' Congressional agriculture policy has become the epitome of the self-licking ice cream cone. We cut programs that help small and organic farmers, then redirect tax dollars to provide subsidies. Those subsidies largely go to the biggest agricultural interests, inoculating them against having to make any broader systemic reforms. Then, under the next administration, we create new programs to support small and organic farmers. Rinse and repeat. To give congressional agriculture folks their due, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act could go a long way towards ending this loop by making any state-level support for smaller farmers obsolete and allowing the largest interests — like China's Smithfield Foods — to kill any law they don't like. No more demand for humane products — and, hey, higher profit margins while we're at it. Obviously, this is ridiculous, for all sorts of reasons. What we should do is drop the charade and end or dramatically reduce the crony-capitalist corporate welfare system when it comes to Big Agriculture. Let states pass laws reflecting their own health and safety priorities. Let the consumers speak for themselves. And then let the free market do its work.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
European Space Agency reveals 3 key space missions threatened by Trump's NASA budget cuts
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The European Space Agency (ESA) has revealed that three of the 19 missions it is planning or operating in collaboration with NASA are at risk as a result of President Trump's proposed budget cuts, which could slash finances available to the U.S space agency by 24%. During a press conference held on Thursday (June 12), ESA Director of Science Carole Mundell revealed that the space-based gravitational wave observatory LISA, the Venus orbiter EnVision, and the largest X-ray observatory ever planned, NewAthena, could be threatened if the proposed NASA budget cuts in Trump's FY26 budget go ahead. ESA thinks that at this initial stage, the impact can be mitigated on the other 16 missions in collaboration with NASA, but the remaining three missions may require a rethink if they happen at all. "We're looking at three potential missions that, should the budget proposal come to pass as written, would require recovery actions. That's LISA, EnVision, the NewAthena," Mundell said. ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher added: "This is an ongoing negotiation in the United States. It is not for us as ESA to comment on these negotiations or to interfere, but we are impacted in quite a number of domains that are, at least at the moment, proposed for cancellations or reductions. "This will require that some of the activities may be frozen. No decisions or cancellations have yet been made because the decisions on the side of the U.S. are not yet finalized. We need to wait for the final decisions from the U.S." Mundell continued by underlining how deeply ESA values the collaboration between Europe and NASA, but added that Europe does have or could acquire the technical capabilities to reduce to reproduce missing elements. "That's something that we're now working through," she number of missions that could be threatened if ESA is forced to repurpose funds extends beyond the three missions mentioned above. Though the Nov. 16, 2025 launch of the sea-level rise monitoring Sentinel-6B spacecraft will go ahead as planned, its sibling mission, Sentinel-6C, could also be impacted by the proposed budget cuts if they are passed successfully. "It was my proposal when I was director of Earth observation, to rename a satellite Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich [after former director of the Earth Science Division in the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters from 2006 to 2019]," Aschbacher added. "It would be a pity if Sentinel-6C were not funded or supported, as it is a successor of the mission Michael Freilich, which is still in space. We offered our satellite to be named after a NASA Administrator as a very visible sign of the of the deepness of the cooperation between NASA and ESA." Proposed U.S. budget cuts could also impact the planned Mars rover Rosalind Franklin, previously known as the ExoMars rover. That is because the robotic explorer named after the esteemed British chemist was set to feature several components supplied by NASA. ESA may now seek to develop on its own the technologies for the three main elements of the rover set to be provided by NASA: its launcher, radio isotope heater unit, and aerobraking engine. This will take time and may impact the mission's timeline, which would have seen Rosalind Franklin head to Mars in 2028. Related Stories: — Trump administration proposes slashing NASA budget by 24% — Experts alarmed as White House proposes 'largest single-year cut to NASA in American history' — Trump's 2026 budget plan would cancel NASA's Mars Sample Return mission. Experts say that's a 'major step back' Of course, nothing is yet set in stone, with the U.S. Congress yet to have the final say on how to allocate federal dollars. A final decision on the FY 2026 Discretionary Budget is expected in Fall 2025. Meanwhile, ESA will meet in late November to finalize its own budget. This means that the space agency may have to move ahead with contingency planning and budgeting before the final outcome of proposed U.S. budget cuts is known. "The timing is expected to be maybe just before decisions are being made, and the fiscal year 26 budget will be known for sure. We need to assess on one side, how much it costs to wait, and how long we can wait," Aschbacher said. "There is a lot of analysis and options that need to be verified and need to be discussed."In brief, the main highlight, or the main point, is that we have agreed to make sure that Europe is increasing its resilience and autonomy to make sure that we have the technologies we need in the near future."
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Veterans Speak Out Against Trump's Military Parade
Veteran Rebecca Roberts speaks outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., during a protest by veterans on June 13, 2025, over Trump's military parade. Credit - Leigh Vogel—Getty Image Thousands of troops will march through Washington, D.C. as a part of President Donald Trump's national military parade on Saturday to honor the 250th birthday of the U.S. Army. The day also coincides with the President's 79th birthday. But the parade arguably couldn't come at a more precarious time. The Trump Administration is engaged in a legal battle with California, after deploying National Guard troops to Los Angeles without the request or approval of Gov. Gavin Newsom. There is also grave concern about what's happening overseas, as Israel and Iran trade deadly missiles after Israel launched a military operation targeting Iran's nuclear facilities and personnel. Amid all this, protests are expected throughout the country as organizations and individuals take part in 'No Kings Day' demonstrations. While the protests have long been arranged, they've been largely spurned on by Trump's actions regarding the L.A. protests, which have since spread to other cities across the U.S. The protests are 'taking action to reject authoritarianism—and show the world what democracy really looks like,' per the 'No Kings' website, which also states 'in America, we don't do kings.' Dissent against the parade is also coming partly from within one of Trump's most reliable support bases: veterans. Although former U.S. military personnel have historically voted with wide margins in favor of Trump and the Republican Party, there is a growing discontent among some within the community. Read More: Veterans Condemn Trump's 'Misuse of Military Power' Amid L.A. Protests On Friday, a group of roughly 60 veterans and military family members protesting both the deployment of the National Guard in L.A. and Saturday's military parade were arrested by the Capitol Police, after they breached a police line of bike racks. 'President Trump threatened Americans coming to exercise their first amendment rights would be met with 'great force,'' said Michael T. McPhearson, veteran and director of Veterans for Peace, an organizer of the protest. 'We are the actual people who put uniforms on because we believe in the freedoms this country is supposed to be about and we will not be intimidated into silence.' McPhearson's words echo the sentiments of others, including Chris Purdy, a U.S. Army National Guard veteran who served from 2004 to 2012 and was deployed to Iraq in 2011. Purdy maintains values of military might and respect set to be displayed in the parade exist in 'stark contrast' to how Trump is treating both veterans and also 'our neighbors and our allies that have helped build the peace.' '[Veteran Affairs] announced an end to the VASP [Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase] program. This is a program that kept around 13,000 veterans in their homes last year, and there are 90,000 vets who are at financial risk through their [VA] loans that would have benefited from this program,' says Purdy, highlighting the reported $45 million cost of the parade. 'I'm seeing a lot of attacks on the apolitical nature of the military, on the veteran community itself. And then, to kind of wrap it all up in this parade, it feels gross.' Purdy recounts a lesson from a sergeant in the Army, who told him that 'respect is built by coalitions, by relationships.' Purdy points to a defining factor of Trump's first months of Presidency, which has included contentious relationships with multiple U.S. allies, including Canada. 'I think about my time in Iraq and the coalition partners that I served alongside—the British, Polish, and Lithuanian soldiers—we built these coalitions to help us accomplish the mission,' Purdy says. 'We [veterans] believe that America can lead the world without being oppressive. So this kind of ostentatious display of American might feels unnecessary. It feels like the bully on the playground that needs to kind of go around and flex his muscles to prove like he's the biggest kid on the block.' And Purdy is not alone in his concerns. A survey conducted by Data for Progress and Common Defense, conducted in April, found that around 70% of the veterans approached said they are opposed to the Trump Administration 'ordering active-duty U.S. military troops to perform a parade in honor of President Trump's birthday.' Janessa Goldbeck agrees with Purdy's assessment, pointing to both the VASP cut, as well as Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' which proposes cuts to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), that Goldbeck says many military and veteran households 'rely on.' 'And then you pair that with this complete endangerment and misuse of the National Guard and the active-duty military. Clearly, there's no regard for veterans or people in uniform from this Administration,' Goldbeck claims. 'All of this is an attempt to reshape the United States military as a tool of domestic power for the sitting President… it is certainly not in line with the principles enshrined in the Constitution that I swore to uphold and defend.' But not all veterans are in agreement that the parade is a 'gross' display of strength. Read More: What To Know About Trump's Military Parade Many veterans have traveled to Washington, D.C. for the festivities to celebrate the active-duty military members who are choosing to serve their country. 'It's good for Americans to see what their tax dollars are paying for and what the troops who are protecting them are using,' said veteran John Norton, who was on the bomb squad in the Army and served in Athens, Greece, and Vicenza, Italy. Norton was referencing the Army tanks and aircraft that will be displayed during the parade, during an interview with ABC News. Veteran Ana Salazar is attending the parade to 'thank' the active-duty military members for their service. 'Proud to be a fellow brother and sister-in-arms with my fellow veterans and active-duty service members,' she said. Salazar served in the military from 2003 to 2014, and was stationed in Belgium, Kansas, Missouri, and Hawaii, and did tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, Libby Jamison, military spouse and former President of the Military Spouse J.D. Network, says veterans she knows may agree with different aspects of Trump's policies, but those 'across the political spectrum' in her community are 'concerned about this level of spending on this type of pageantry.' Currently, Jamison is working on bringing down the 20% unemployment rate among active-duty spouses, and says the messaging of the parade as a celebration feels in conflict with the conditions she sees many veterans and military personnel existing in. 'I think if you ask [those] families what they need at this moment, it wouldn't be a parade. It would be, 'I need a job' or 'I need child care,'' Jamison argues. 'Who is this parade really for? Because it doesn't feel like it's for service members or families.' Contact us at letters@