2 weeks Ago
In a devastating blow to families across the state, the South Carolina Supreme Court’s recent ruling on school choice slammed the door on nearly 3,000 low-income families seeking to find the best educational opportunities for their children just weeks into the school year. The reason why the court ruled against the state’s Education Scholarship Trust Fund program? The majority opinion in Eidson v. South Carolina Department of Education argued that “no money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.
” This is known as the Blaine Amendment. School choice opponents have also claimed that the ESTF defunds public schools. Despite claims from these school choice opponents and media that usually call all school choice programs vouchers, this ESTF program does not directly funnel money to private schools nor does it defund public schools.
Instead, it provides a portion of the per pupil funding back to families through education savings accounts, allowing them to choose a school for their children. Additionally, these funds can be used for tutoring, curriculum, technology and therapy. This is the key difference between school choice vouchers and ESAs.
ESAs have successfully withstood Blaine Amendment challenges in other states, including in Arizona and Florida as these school choice programs are different from vouchers. In fact, most states have incorporated the Blaine Amendment into their state laws, and they have these ESA programs. This is also a completely isolated issue from Adams v.
McMaster that overturned South Carolina’s COVID-recovery SAFE Grants tuition grant program as funds from it would have directly allowed funds to be provided to private educational institutions. Aiken could be getting three gas stations. Where will they be? Prep Football Roundup for Week 5 Aiken-area man accused of pulling a gun during an argument over petting a dog Shorthanded Wagener-Salley shows fight, comes up short against Columbia on Homecoming 'Corn in their boots:' Titan Farms introduces Sara's Farm Adventure Blackville-Hilda moves to 4-1 following road win over Denmark-Olar Final reading of sale of old Aiken County Hospital delayed following Aiken County Council hearing Aiken man dead after being shot on the Northside Missing North Augusta teenager could be in Florida Home for Good Dog Rescue, PETSInc team up for Sept.
26 veterinary clinic near Aiken In addition to families given a portion of already existing per pupil funding, the remainder of the funds go back to public schools. That means there is more money for fewer students, and when the money is given to families, the funds no longer belong to the government. In South Carolina, per pupil funding is at $8,590, and each student participating in the ESTF program would have received $6,000, so approximately 70% of the per pupil funding would have been allocated to families, while the remaining portion would return to students in public schools.
In the end, it is a win-win for everyone as there will be more funds for families who choose to keep their children in these schools, and the public school system will no longer have to fund a student that leaves. The court’s ruling shatters dreams for low-income families seeking to find an education that works for their children. The ESTF was exclusively available to families making 200% or less of the federal poverty level, providing them with opportunities they could otherwise never afford.
With this decision, students may have to leave their current schools, and parents are left without a viable alternative. I may be an education policy analyst and reporter, as well as advocating for school choice as my platform as Miss Mission South Carolina USA, but school choice is also personal to me. When my family came to this country, my parents sacrificed so much financially to send my sister and me to a private school that worked for us, until my dad lost his job, then they eventually found us charter schools that worked for us.
Had we had access to school choice programs, we likely would have been able to stay at our private school or find another school that worked for us. If families are unhappy with their child’s school, they should be able to take their money elsewhere to use for an education that works for their children. With funds going directly to families through already existing funding, South Carolina’s school choice program is legal and does not defund public schools.
The priority should be helping families who just lost their school choice scholarships ensure they will be able to continue attending their private schools..
