South Carolina’s Supreme Court dismantles a school choice program, leaving thousands of low-income families in educational limbo.
At a Glance
- South Carolina’s Supreme Court struck down the state’s school voucher program in a 3-2 ruling
- The Education Scholarship Trust Fund Act allowed eligible families to receive $6,000 annually for private school costs
- Over 2,800 students are estimated to be impacted by the decision
- The ruling halts scholarships immediately, affecting students midsemester
Court’s Ruling on Educational Funding
In a significant blow to school choice advocates, the South Carolina Supreme Court has struck down the state’s school voucher program. The ruling, decided by a narrow 3-2 margin, effectively dismantles a program that was set to provide crucial financial assistance to low-income families seeking alternative education options for their children.
The court’s decision was rooted in Article XI, Section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution, which explicitly prohibits the use of public funds for private educational institutions. The majority opinion, penned by Justice D. Garrison Hill, left no room for ambiguity regarding the program’s constitutionality.
Wow – South Carolina Supreme Court just struck down school vouchers. Did not see that one coming https://t.co/xexznGq2mB
— Isaiah Walker (@walkeri141) September 11, 2024
Impact on Families and Students
The Education Scholarship Trust Fund (ESTF) Act, signed into law by Republican Governor Henry McMaster in May 2023, was designed to provide up to 5,000 scholarships of $6,000 each for the 2024-25 school year. These funds were intended to cover various educational expenses, including tuition, textbooks, and educational therapies for eligible students attending private schools.
“The Supreme Court’s decision may have devastating consequences for thousands of low-income families who relied on these scholarships for their child’s enrollment in school last month,” McMaster said in a statement.
The timing of the ruling has caused significant disruption, as it comes after the start of the current school year. The Palmetto Promise Institute estimates that over 2,800 students will be directly impacted by this decision, potentially forcing many to abruptly change their educational plans mid-semester.
Legal Reasoning and Dissent
The majority opinion argued that despite the state’s attempts to structure the program as benefiting families rather than schools directly, the end result was still a violation of the state constitution. Justice Hill wrote, “After we clear away the window dressing, we can see the Act funnels public funds to the direct benefit of private schools. This is what our constitution forbids.”
“We hold today petitioners have demonstrated there is no factual application where it is constitutional for ESTF funds to be used for tuition at private educational institutions.”
However, the decision was not unanimous. Chief Justice Kittredge, in his dissenting opinion, argued that the majority’s interpretation of “direct benefit” was overly broad, potentially undermining the legislature’s policy-making role. He stated, “The majority opinion today defines the phrase ‘direct benefit’ so broadly that it swallows any possible meaning of ‘indirect benefit’ in the process. In doing so, the majority opinion pays lip service to the policy-making role of the legislature.”
Sources
1. SC high court rejects GOP vouchers, says taxpayer dollars can’t pay private tuition
2. South Carolina Supreme Court Strikes Down School Choice Program for Low Income Families
3. SC Supreme Court strikes down part of new private school voucher law
