CHADD Position Statement/Strategy for Addressing the Educational Choice for Children Act of 2025 and, More Broadly, School Voucher and Scholarship Programs. This is an amalgam of information from the Advocacy and Public Policy Committee members and relevant outside sources.

School voucher and scholarship programs have been debated for decades in the United States, with more than thirty states now operating some form of publicly supported tuition assistance for private education. These programs vary widely in eligibility criteria, funding levels, and the extent to which they address the needs of students with disabilities. Views on voucher programs differ sharply among policymakers, educators, and families—including within CHADD’s own membership.

On July 4, 2025, Congress enacted the Educational Choice for Children Act of 2025 (ECCA) as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. ECCA establishes a federal tax credit for donations to Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs), which may then provide scholarships for families for private school tuition or certain educational expenses, including tutoring, instructional materials, and technology in both public and private school settings. Eligibility is capped at families earning up to 300% of the area median income in their county.

Participation in the ECCA program requires states to formally opt in by January 1, 2027. As of early 2026, a significant number of states have already opted in, and additional participation is anticipated. Given this trajectory, ECCA is likely to have a broad and lasting impact on both public and private education systems beginning in 2027.

Voucher and scholarship programs remain controversial. Supporters emphasize parental choice and expanded access to private educational options. At the same time, critics raise concerns about public school funding, constitutional issues related to church–state separation, and the adequacy of civil rights protections for vulnerable student populations, including students with disabilities. These debates form an important context for CHADD’s analysis but are not in themselves, the focus of this statement.

CHADD’s Posture and Governance Perspective

CHADD does not endorse or oppose school voucher or scholarship programs as a matter of education policy. However, given the rapid expansion of voucher programs at both the state and federal levels, CHADD recognizes that many families of children with ADHD will encounter these programs regardless of CHADD’s position. In this context, CHADD’s responsibility is to center the protection of children with ADHD by clearly identifying civil rights risks, advocating for enforceable safeguards where policy decisions are being made, and equipping families with accurate information about the legal and practical implications of leaving the public education system. This approach reflects neither endorsement nor resignation, but a governance-based commitment to minimizing harm and preserving rights in a changing educational landscape. We believe that by informing the public of the broad impact of their choices, we will help them make informed choices.

The impact of ECCA and related voucher programs on students with ADHD depends in large part on which civil rights and special education laws apply in different educational settings.

Applicability of Federal Disability Protections Based on School Type and Funding Source

• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
  IDEA applies primarily to students enrolled in public schools or to students placed in private schools by public school districts at public expense. Students who voluntarily enroll in private schools generally do not receive the full procedural and substantive protections of IDEA.
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
  Section 504 applies to schools—public or private—that receive federal financial assistance. All public schools are covered. Some private schools receive federal funds (for example, through school lunch programs), but many do not. Scholarships provided through SGOs under ECCA are paid to families rather than directly to schools and, therefore, by themselves, do not constitute federal financial assistance to private schools.
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title III
  Title III applies to non-religious private schools as places of public accommodation. Religiously controlled schools are exempt from Title III’s requirements.

As a result of these distinctions, students with ADHD who attend private school—particularly religiously controlled schools—may have fewer enforceable rights to nondiscrimination, accommodations, and due process than students in public schools. Additional detail on these legal frameworks is provided in Appendix A: Key Considerations for Parents of Children with Disabilities: Legal Protections and Access to Services in Public and Private School Settings—Things to Know to Make Informed Decisions.

Proposed Strategy and Action

For families of children with ADHD, these legal distinctions have real-world consequences. Moving from a public to a private school setting may involve the loss of enforceable rights to evaluation, accommodation, and procedural protections. CHADD’s recommendations and proposed actions are designed to address these risks by advocating for stronger safeguards where policy decisions are being made and by ensuring families have clear, accurate information about the implications of participating in voucher or scholarship programs.

CHADD Priorities and Strategic Approach

Given the patchwork of protection for students with ADHD (as well as for other students with disabilities or other protected groups), CHADD believes it is a high priority to focus its efforts on protecting children’s rights and informing and supporting families as they navigate the voucher and scholarship programs.

Priority Areas

1. Advocacy for Baseline Civil Rights Protections
   • Mobilize CHADD members and chapters, in collaboration with other special education and disability rights groups, to promote the comprehensive application of special education and disability rights laws to private schools in states that have already opted in to voucher programs and those considering it. CHADD believes states should not opt into the federal voucher program unless they extend enforceable civil rights protections. This includes explicit protections for admission, accommodation, and specialized support for children with disabilities in those schools, including due-process rights like those applicable to public schools. As the “opt-in” decisions must be made this year, we believe this is a critical time to advance efforts to ensure that civil rights laws for children with ADHD and other disabilities will be in force. We believe states should not OPT IN to the federal voucher program unless they are also extending civil rights protections to children with disabilities wishing to attend private school.
   • While legal protections establish essential safeguards against discrimination, they do not by themselves ensure that schools are prepared to meet the educational needs of students with ADHD. For these students, meaningful access depends not only on formal rights but also on schools’ capacity to provide appropriate supports and interventions. ADHD is one of the most common and impairing neurodevelopmental conditions in childhood and adolescence and is frequently accompanied by co-occurring conditions that further affect learning, behavior, and emotional regulation. For students with ADHD, access to appropriate school-based supports, accommodations, and interventions is not ancillary but a central component of effective, multimodal treatment. For further information on the social and economic impact of school support and services costs for students with ADHD see, Appendix B: Overview of Social and Economic Costs of Unmanaged ADHD: The Social and Economic Impact of School Supports and Services.
   • Schools that lack the capacity or willingness to provide such supports place students with ADHD at heightened risk of academic failure, exclusionary discipline, unmet educational needs, or inappropriate dismissal. These risks are particularly acute in educational settings where civil rights protections, due process, and enforceable service obligations are limited or absent. For this reason, CHADD believes that participation in voucher or scholarship programs must be conditioned not only on nondiscrimination in admissions but also on demonstrated capacity and an obligation to meet the educational needs of students with ADHD.
2. Regardless of the broader policy debates surrounding voucher programs, we propose that CHADD undertake an educational campaign to inform parents about the pros and cons of participation in school voucher programs (and the related decision to leave the public schools and the more explicit legal protections that are available in the public system) so that the parents can make an informed choice about whether the shift to a private school is, on balance, the right choice for each family. These resources will emphasize the legal and practical differences between public and private school settings, including the applicability of federal and state civil rights laws, as well as what to investigate about particular schools to determine their commitment, capacity, and legal obligation to protect the rights of children with ADHD.

At a general level, to implement this plan, we propose the following:

• educating families about how ECCA works and what questions to ask before using scholarships;
• advocating for baseline guardrails in participating states (nondiscrimination, transparency, clear discipline policies, and complaint pathways);
• working in coalition with other disability and special education groups where interests align;
• engaging in light-touch monitoring by collecting member experiences rather than attempting comprehensive state-by-state oversight;
• canvassing the CHADD chapters and concentrations of CHADD members by state to determine which will likely have the capacity for action on their own in their state and in conjunction with other disability rights and education organizations.