In Columbia, South Carolina, the House has given its nod to a new bill that allows parents to use taxpayer funds for private school tuition. Following a standard vote on Thursday, the bill will be sent back to the state Senate. The Senate can either accept the changes made by the House or negotiate a compromise. A notable difference between the versions is financing: the Senate’s version taps into state lottery revenues, while the House prefers financing from the general budget.
The passage of this bill is not without hurdles. In 2023, a similar initiative was blocked by the state Supreme Court due to constitutional constraints against using public funds for private or religious schools. This time, the Senate is betting that using lottery funds could appease the court’s stipulations. Meanwhile, the House proposes that a trustee from the state Education Department administers the finances, which supporters argue might sidestep constitutional conflicts, as it introduces an intermediary layer before the money reaches parents.
This maneuver hasn’t convinced everyone. State Rep. Neal Collins, a Republican from Easley, voiced opposition, arguing that public money should not support private education. Collins critiqued the plan, suggesting it involves “mental gymnastics” to argue that the funds become private simply through the managing trustee.
The House passed the bill with a 79-38 vote. South Carolina is attempting to join roughly 15 other states that direct public funds toward private education, while several others offer tax credits for such expenses.
Efforts to steer public money to private education in the state span over two decades, cutting across multiple gubernatorial and legislative tenures in a predominantly Republican landscape. The approved House bill’s blueprint allocates $30 million toward what’s dubbed as educational scholarships. These scholarships promise up to $6,000 per academic year to eligible families, capped by federal poverty guidelines, approximately $100,000 annual income for a family of four. The funds could cover tuition, tutoring, or necessary equipment.
Suggestions by Democrats to ensure private schools receiving funds maintain open enrollment, accepting students irrespective of disabilities, race, religion, or sexual orientation, were rejected by Republicans. Another nixed amendment proposed mandatory transport for economically disadvantaged students traveling over 10 miles to private schools.
Democratic state Rep. Justin Bamberg criticized the bill as exclusive, not offering fair opportunities to all, but rather favoring a select group at the expense of others. An alternative option to avoid another court clash could be a constitutional amendment supported by a supermajority. However, such a measure appears unlikely to gain adequate public backing.
State Rep. David Martin, also a Republican, argued that circumventing constitutional amendments isn’t a genuine solution. He criticized provisions allowing financially comfortable families to exploit public resources for private education as inequitable and counterproductive for aiding those in need.
Elsewhere, Tennessee has expanded its voucher scheme, while Texas is contemplating introducing one. The move allies with broader national trends emphasized during Donald Trump’s presidency, where federal priorities tilted towards school choice initiatives.
