SC looks to expand school voucher program less than a year after launch
An effort to expand the state’s choice program through educational scholarship accounts cleared the House on Wednesday in a 69-32 vote.
Proponents of the bill want to expand the current program, which is still in its infancy and is under review by the state Supreme Court.
Applications for the educational scholarship account program, which is still in its first year, recently closed.
More than 7,900 students have applied for 5,000 scholarships. So far, about 1,400 students have been awarded scholarships after being screened, according to the state Department of Education.
Nearly half of the applications are from Black students and nearly 75% are on Medicaid, state Department of Education data shows.
Under the current program, 5,000 scholarships at $6,000 a piece are slated to be made available. The second year it increases to 10,000 scholarships, and 15,000 in the third year. The program is meant for children from low income families to access schools that more better their needs.
Families can use the money for educational-related materials, tutoring and transportation to school outside of an assigned district.
Still House lawmakers want to expand the program to make it universal across the state to increase the ability for families to choose where to send their students to school.
The bill, however, still needs to get through state Senate before even reaching the governor’s desk.
The program signed into law last year includes an increasing income cap and is a three-year pilot program.
The proposal adopted by the House on Wednesday removes the income cap in 2026.
“Parents want, and truly need, choices for their children’s education. The Education Scholarship Trust Fund makes enormous strides to help all students get educational services, but we realized that more must be done,” House Education and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Shannon Erickson, R-Beaufort, said in a news release when the bill was filed. “The bold, universal system proposed in the upcoming bill will help more students realize the futures they desire.”
Democrats speaking against the bill tried to add amendments to require audits of private schools and control the cost of the tuition, among other efforts.
“We have no idea how this will be implemented and what the results will be,” said state Rep. Russell Ott, D-Calhoun. “The ink is not dry off of the bill that was passed last year.”
Critics of the program have said private schools can pick which students they want to accept in their schools without regard to disability or race.
Erickson said the bill would prohibit unlawful discrimination and is the same language used in the state’s 4K program and needs based scholarship program for college students.
Under the expansion proposal, the first year of the program is slated to cost $30 million. The second year will cost $65 million. The third year $105.8 million in scholarships.
The Revenue and Fiscal Affairs also said, however, the effect on school districts financial situations is undetermined.
“The potential reduction in school district expenditures due to students enrolling in the program will vary depending on the degree to which districts can consolidate resources by reducing the number of teachers or classrooms,” RFA Executive Director Frank Rainwater wrote in a memo to lawmakers. “Assuming the students are spread throughout the state, each school district would see only a reduction in the variable costs per student.”
State Rep. Justin Bamberg, D-Bamberg, said not knowing the potential cost is concerning.
“I don’t foresee this being a positive thing for school districts,” Bamberg said.
The Palmetto State Teachers Association questioned the need for the bill at this point in time. The current statute is meant as a three-year pilot program.
“It’s a premature and inappropriate bill because the state of South Carolina has yet to administer a single ESA to a single family,” said PSTA Director of Governmental Affairs Patrick Kelly. “So we have no information on whether the program works in terms of just getting the money to families, but we also don’t have any data on whether the program actually moves the needle for students academically, which is what the entire purpose of the existing program is supposed to be.”
