Massachusetts stays on the sidelines: Healey awaits Treasury rules as a business coalition and the teachers union clash over the §25F credit

Massachusetts is sitting out the federal Education Freedom Tax Credit (§25F) for now. The state is absent from the IRS roster of 27 states that have filed advance elections to participate, published as IR-2026-76 on June 8, 2026. Gov. Maura Healey, a Democrat, has not committed either way: after Treasury previewed its regulatory framework the week of June 8, her administration said it is waiting on formal guidance from the U.S. Treasury and the Department of Education, expected by the end of September 2026, before deciding whether to opt in (Boston Globe; State House News, June 11, 2026). The posture leaves Massachusetts off the participation list even as a high-profile business coalition and the state’s largest teachers union square off over the question, a fight the Boston Globe broke open in its June 12, 2026 newsletter.

On one side is a coalition spearheaded by Boston investor Peter Lynch and his family foundation, joined by the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, the Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Massachusetts Business Roundtable, and The Boston Foundation, all pressing Healey to participate (Boston Globe, June 12, 2026). The push has Republican backing as well: State House News reported the same week that GOP lawmakers, the Pioneer Institute, former Lt. Gov. Tim Murray of the Worcester Regional Chamber, and Republican gubernatorial candidate Mike Minogue have all urged Massachusetts not to miss out. On the other side, Massachusetts Teachers Association president Max Page, co-signed by Vice President Deb McCarthy, sent Healey a letter (delivered around June 10 to 11) arguing the credit would drain resources from public schools and framing it as part of a Republican voucher movement.

The mechanics behind the standoff are straightforward. Under §25F, a state opts in when its governor files an advance election with the IRS (Form 15714) and designates qualifying Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs). Donors anywhere in the country can then claim a dollar-for-dollar federal income tax credit of up to $1,700 per taxpayer for contributions to a qualifying SGO, which awards K-12 scholarships to families earning up to 300% of their area median gross income. The credit goes live January 1, 2027, and the program was created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Critically, Treasury has only previewed its framework: the actual proposed regulations are not expected until the end of September 2026, which is precisely the guidance Healey says she is waiting on. We cover that timeline in our report on the Treasury §25F preview, and the statutory cap detail in our explainer on why the credit is $1,700, not $3,400.

For donors, families, and prospective SGO founders, the practical takeaway is that Massachusetts remains a non-participating state. There is no Massachusetts program to plan around yet: its residents see no in-state SGOs to give to, and its families cannot receive the scholarships, even though the federal credit exists nationally. Massachusetts’s current status, and every other state’s, is tracked on our Massachusetts state page and the national participation map. Operators weighing whether to stand up one of Massachusetts’s first SGOs, so the infrastructure exists if and when the state elects in, can review how the organizations work in our explainers and see the current landscape in the SGO directory; the back-office work of donor intake, eligibility checks, and scholarship disbursement can be run on software built specifically for §25F.

The forward question is whether the late-September guidance arrives in time to force Healey’s hand before the January 1, 2027 launch. The longer Massachusetts goes without filing an advance election, the longer its donors hold credit-eligible dollars with no in-state place to send them and the more pressure builds from the business coalition lining up against the teachers union. Massachusetts is not alone in this hesitation: it joins a broader group of blue states where the decision turns on the same waiting game, a pattern we track in our coverage of how Democratic governors have split on §25F. Whether Healey’s “wait for the rules” stance becomes a yes will be measured by one thing: whether Massachusetts ever files an advance election with the IRS.