Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
The bill creates a temporary individual nonrefundable tax credit (section 25F) for eligible teachers who provide out-of-school tutoring focused on math, reading & writing, or science. An eligible teacher who provides at least 150 qualified tutoring hours in a taxable year receives a $500 base credit plus a supplemental credit up to $500 based on hours between 150 and 200 (maximum credit $1,000).
Scope and adequacy: liberals see it as modest but helpful; conservatives view it as an unnecessary federal preference.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-defined statutory insertion that specifies credit amounts, eligibility criteria, effective and termination dates, and requires Treasury reporting.
The bill creates a temporary individual nonrefundable tax credit (section 25F) for eligible teachers who provide out-of-school tutoring focused on math, reading & writing, or science.
An eligible teacher who provides at least 150 qualified tutoring hours in a taxable year receives a $500 base credit plus a supplemental credit up to $500 based on hours between 150 and 200 (maximum credit $1,000).
Eligible teachers must meet state certification/licensure and tutor students enrolled in the same type of school as their employment (preschool, elementary, or secondary).
On content alone, this is a narrowly focused, administrable proposal that addresses a widely sympathetic constituency and includes compromise features (temporary sunset, reporting). Those features increase plausibility of enactment. Offsetting factors are the new (unfunded) tax expenditure, unclear fiscal cost and enforcement mechanics, and the procedural burdens of passing standalone tax legislation—especially in the Senate—without being folded into a larger package.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-defined statutory insertion that specifies credit amounts, eligibility criteria, effective and termination dates, and requires Treasury reporting. It integrates with existing law and delegates administrative detail to the Treasury Secretary.
Scope and adequacy: liberals see it as modest but helpful; conservatives view it as an unnecessary federal preference.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope and adequacy: liberals see it as modest but helpful; conservatives view it as an unnecessary federal preference.
A mainstream liberal would likely view the bill as a modest, targeted effort to support teachers and expand tutoring in core academic subjects, which could help students who need extra help.
They would note the temporary nature and small maximum benefit, and see it as insufficient on its own to address structural underfunding of schools or the need for systemic tutoring programs.
Concerns would center on equity—teachers who can provide extensive after-hours tutoring (often those without caregiving responsibilities or with higher-paid spouses) gain most—and on whether the credit incentivizes private or fee-based tutoring rather than expanding publicly funded, school-run interventions.
A centrist would see the bill as a reasonably targeted, fiscally modest incentive to increase student tutoring in essential subjects and to give teachers modest compensation for extra time.
They would appreciate the temporary sunset and reporting provision but want clearer details on cost, administration, and how hours are verified.
Pragmatic concerns include potential duplication with existing school programs, the paperwork burden for teachers and the IRS, and ensuring the credit does not create perverse incentives or fraud.
A mainstream conservative would acknowledge the goal of encouraging tutoring and providing teachers some relief, but would be skeptical of a federal tax preference targeted at a specific profession.
They may prefer local or private solutions rather than a federal credit, and worry about complexity, cost, and unequal treatment relative to other workers who put in extra hours.
Some conservatives might support the bill if viewed as a narrow, temporary, limited-cost incentive that helps students and increases private tutoring without expanding federal programs.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, this is a narrowly focused, administrable proposal that addresses a widely sympathetic constituency and includes compromise features (temporary sunset, reporting). Those features increase plausibility of enactment. Offsetting factors are the new (unfunded) tax expenditure, unclear fiscal cost and enforcement mechanics, and the procedural burdens of passing standalone tax legislation—especially in the Senate—without being folded into a larger package.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope and adequacy: liberals see it as modest but helpful; conservatives view it as an unnecessary federal preference.
On content alone, this is a narrowly focused, administrable proposal that addresses a widely sympathetic constituency and includes compromi…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-defined statutory insertion that specifies credit amounts, eligibility criteria, effective and termination dates, and requires Treasury reporting. It integr…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.