This week, the South Carolina Supreme Court made a decision that likely stunned every conservative in the state and, quite possibly, the country.
The court ruled that the state's school choice program was unconstitutional, a decision that is likely to cause lawsuits throughout the country.
Talking Points…
- School choice programs
- South Carolina shock ruling
- Analysis
Red states are at war with teachers' unions right now, and one of the weapons in their arsenal is the school choice program. In essence, this program offers vouchers, education savings accounts ESA), and scholarship tax credits for parents that would enable them to remove their children from regular public schools to enroll them in magnet schools, charter schools, and even other public schools generally out of their district that have open enrollment. These programs have become very popular in red states, including South Carolina, citing the purpose of the program:
"The intent of these policies has been to improve student achievement throughout the education system, seek innovative methods of instruction and school governance, and provide parents with an alternative to neighborhood schools."
Teachers' unions are fighting these programs tooth and nail, saying the program takes money away from the public school system. For instance, when Texas was putting school choice programs on the ballot, the Texas Chapter of the American Federation of Teachers went nuclear, stating:
"When vouchers strip more money away from our already strapped neighborhood schools, the only people who will benefit are the richest parents, who are already sending their children to private schools.
"For everyone else, vouchers will crowd classrooms and put every member of the school community who keep the hubs of our communities running on the chopping block. And it's the hardest hit, and often more rural communities, that get left further and further behind."
In South Carolina, the State Supreme Court ruled 3-2 to strike down the Education Scholarship Trust Fund (ESTF) program. The majority stated that the program violated the state constitution by using government funds for the "direct benefit" of private schools. The decision has rocked the educational world, as a $1,500 installment payment has already been issued, with the school year having already begun. Associate Justice D. Garrison Hill penned the majority opinion, stating:
"The dissent claims our decision 'pulls the rug out' from under the feet of the General Assembly and 'ultimately, the feet of the students the law was designed to serve.'
"Our duty is to serve the Constitution, the supreme policy of our land. As such, our obligation is not to allow a rug to cover up well-marked constitutional ground, no matter how inconvenient that ground may prove to be to otherwise arguably salutary policies."
Chief Justice John W. Kittredge believes his fellow members of the court misinterpreted the state constitution, writing in his dissent:
"Under the South Carolina Constitution, the use of public funds for the direct benefit of a private school is impermissible; the use of public funds for the indirect benefit of a private school is entirely permissible.
"I am firmly convinced the ESTF Act provides an indirect benefit and is facially constitutional."
Republican Gov. Henry McMaster responded to the ruling, stating:
"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.
"[W]e will request the Court to expeditiously reconsider this decision — so that the children of low-income families may have the opportunity to attend the school that best suits their needs."
These programs have become very popular in many states, including Georgia, Florida, and Missouri, with Ohio and Tennessee among those hoping to push forward. This ruling, however, will give Democrats hope they can get all that money back for the teachers' union, so expect a flurry of lawsuits to be filed to challenge every school choice program currently operating around the country.
