Legality of South Carolina’s New Voucher Program Under Scrutiny – Sky Bulletin

In recent proceedings, the South Carolina Supreme Court is tasked with determining whether a recently established private school voucher program is lawful, or if it goes against the state constitution’s prohibition of directing public funds to non-public education institutions.

The law, passed the previous year and currently under scrutiny, provides for taxpayer money to be utilized towards private schooling. While the case is being deliberated, there is already legislative movement to broaden the scope of the initiative, potentially impacting up to 15,000 students annually with vouchers amounting to $6,000 each.

The contentious issue revolves around the state constitution’s clause that precludes public financial support for “the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.” Critics of the voucher program argue that despite the provision that permits students to apply the funds towards fees or transport for out-of-district public schools, it inadvertently provides a direct benefit to private schools by offering public money.

Contrastingly, proponents point to a trust fund mechanism as pivotal, asserting that the direct beneficiaries are the parents who choose how to spend the money, not the private schools that would indirectly receive funds from parents’ choices.

The core debate is encapsulated in identifying the primary recipient of the benefit, according to Jim Gilliam, an attorney for Republican House Speaker Murrell Smith. Smith proposed a bill that would eventually eliminate the program’s income and student number limitations, while also doing away with certain oversight and testing comparison requirements.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey has expressed a preference to allow the existing program to prove its effectiveness before considering any expansion. The program is reflective of a broader trend, with approximately 16 states having implemented some variation of educational vouchers.

Additional complexities arise from the program’s administration by the state Education Superintendent, a role traditionally focusing solely on public education as dictated by the constitution. Pursuing this, a retired Court of Appeals chief judge questioned the constitutional validity of such an extension of duties into the private education sector.

The Supreme Court session was characterized by rigorous questioning from the justices, especially from Chief Justice Donald Beatty who referenced a precedent wherein the governor was restricted from diverting COVID relief funds to private schools.

The program’s proponents argue that the financial assistance, despite its substantial $90 million total cost, does not constitute a significant benefit to private schools in light of the increased regulatory scrutiny that accompanies it. Conversely, Chief Justice Beatty highlighted the significance of such funds, suggesting that the allocation equivalent could instead be employed to hire numerous public school teachers.

A verdict from the justices was not delivered on the day of the hearing, with a decision expected to be announced at a future time.