Javar Juarez CUBNSC (Columbia, S.C.) - Senior lawmakers in South Carolina were confident that their plan to use tax dollars to help parents pay for private school tuition, including Governor Henry McMaster's proposal to allocate $32 million in federal COVID-19 aid for tuition grants at private and religious schools, would survive legal challenges. However, on Wednesday, a narrowly divided state Supreme Court disagreed. The court ruled that key provisions of the 2023 Education Scholarship Trust Fund Act violate the state constitution’s “no-aid” clause, found in Section 4 of Article XI, which prohibits using public funds for the "direct benefit" of private schools.
The decision was reached with a 3-2 vote. Justices Gary Hill, acting Justice Donald Beatty, and James Lockemy formed the majority. Chief Justice John Kittredge, joined by Justice John Few, dissented. Justice Gary Hill authored the majority opinion.
Over the past year, South Carolina lawmakers have been advocating for new legislation that would give parents more options regarding their children's K-12 education. Senator Tom Davis has promoted the "Academic Choice in Education" (ACE) bill, emphasizing that it would empower parents to make decisions they believe are best for their children.
The ACE bill proposes scholarships ranging from $1,400 to $10,000 per student, funded by donations from large corporations. These corporations would receive a dollar-for-dollar tax write-off, costing the state an estimated $55 million annually. Additionally, a separate bill passed by the Senate aimed to provide $6,000 scholarships to low and middle-income students for private school tuition, potentially benefiting up to 15,000 students. This program could cost the state up to $90 million each year.
The South Carolina Education Association, led by President Sherry East, opposed both proposals. East expressed concern that the focus is being shifted away from improving public school students' reading and math levels and instead toward directing public funds into private institutions.
Representative Shannon Erickson, a Republican and chair of the South Carolina Education and Public Works Committee, sponsored a bill establishing an open enrollment option in public schools starting in the 2023-2024 school year. Under this policy, each school district must create an open enrollment plan based on a template from the Department of Education, detailing the application process, acceptance priorities, and policies for fees and transportation. The bill also updates existing laws related to school enrollment and attendance.
While the policy allows education dollars to follow a student who transfers districts, local funding does not, which may disadvantage rural areas and parents facing challenges in selecting this option. Although South Carolina now offers open enrollment for public schools, each district retains control over its specific policies.
School Vouchers: A Controversial Education Policy
School vouchers, which allow parents to use state education funds for private or religious schools, have been a contentious issue in the U.S. President Trump and former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos supported the idea, and around 15 states, along with Washington, D.C., have implemented such programs.
While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that voucher programs could be constitutional if parents, not the government, chose to use funds for religious schools, most states do not have these programs due to "Blaine Amendments" in their constitutions, which prohibit using public money for private religious education.
Voucher programs vary widely, often targeting low- to middle-income students or those with disabilities, but they typically provide less funding than public schools. Proponents argue that vouchers increase educational opportunities for low-income families, while critics claim they drain resources from public schools and may allow selective admissions practices.
Research on vouchers' effectiveness is mixed; more recent studies have found significant setbacks. A slight improvement in performance has been observed among public school students near voucher-using students, but this does not benefit the students using the vouchers.
Privatization of South Carolina Schools: Ellen Weaver's Role and the Broader Conservative Agenda
Ellen Weaver, the current Superintendent of Education in South Carolina, represents at the state level what Betsy DeVos represented nationally during the Trump administration: a push toward privatizing public education. While DeVos, a billionaire heiress, explicitly promoted the privatization agenda based on the economic theories of Milton Friedman, Weaver uses the Palmetto Promise Institute which she founded to justify policies that often undermine public schools in favor of private interests. Her decisions, including those that disproportionately affect Black-led school districts in South Carolina, reflect a broader ideological battle over the future of public education in the United States.
A Conservative Strategy Rooted in Ideology and Politics
The movement to privatize public education in America gained momentum in the 1980s and was driven by both ideological and political motivations. The ideological position stemmed from a fundamental distrust of the public sector by conservatives which is still largely liberal, and a desire to reduce its size, while the political motivation was tied to a strategic effort to undermine teachers' unions.
At the time, teachers' unions were not only powerful advocates for public education but also strong supporters of the Democratic Party, providing significant manpower during elections.
The privatization push began under President Ronald Reagan, whose administration promoted the idea that public education was inefficient and failing. This narrative, heavily endorsed by conservative think tanks—much like Ellen Weaver's Palmetto Promise Institute—and foundations, aimed to justify cuts in public spending and the introduction of market-based reforms such as school vouchers and charter schools.
The goal was twofold: to reform the education system in line with free-market principles and to weaken the influence of teachers' unions, which were seen as a political obstacle.
By the 1990s, some centrist Democrats, including President Bill Clinton, began to embrace aspects of this market-driven approach, supporting policies that introduced elements of competition into the education system. This trend continued into the 2000s when both right-leaning and centrist forces heavily pushed the narrative that American public education was in crisis. They portrayed it as a national emergency and even a national security risk, despite evidence showing significant progress in educational outcomes, particularly for low-income and minority students since the Civil Rights Movement. This same strategy is being employed in South Carolina today, with significant attacks directed at the Richland One School District to undermine the construction of the Vince Ford Early Learning Center.
Critics argue that the education reform and privatization movements have relied on creating a sense of "moral panic" about the state of public schools. This alarmist approach has been used to justify various privatization efforts and align with the political strategies of conservatives, as well as wealthy centrists who have framed their involvement as a "mission to improve education for disadvantaged children."
The Role of Betsy DeVos and Billionaire Philanthropy
Fast forward to the Trump administration, Betsy DeVos was appointed Secretary of Education, signaling a new, aggressive push towards the privatization of public schools. DeVos, who is deeply connected to the movement through her family wealth and involvement with organizations promoting vouchers and charter schools, became the public face of this effort. Her philosophy was heavily influenced by Friedman's ideas, particularly the belief that public funds should follow the student to whichever school their parents chose, including private and religious institutions.
Joann Barkan, a writer and member of the editorial board of Dissent magazine, has critically examined this trend. In a 2017 interview with "Schooled," she highlighted how DeVos's agenda to privatize public education was part of a broader strategy by billionaire philanthropists to reshape the American educational landscape. Barkan argued that wealthy donors like Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, and the Koch brothers have poured vast sums into educational reforms that promote privatization, often through self-funded research that lacks independence and credibility. This has led to concerns that these efforts undermine democratic processes and public accountability, shifting control over education policy from elected representatives to unelected, wealthy individuals.
The Changing Nature of Private Foundations
Historically, private foundations in the U.S., established in the early 20th century, focused on supporting public education initiatives to ensure an educated citizenry and reduce disparities. However, in the last two decades, the nature of these foundations has changed dramatically. Once operating with a low profile due to public suspicion—often seen as a means to shelter wealth or exert influence undemocratically—these foundations have become much more activist in their approach. Foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation now actively shape education policy by funding research, lobbying for policy changes, and creating vast networks to promote their agendas.
Unlike in the past, where foundations provided support with relatively little interference, today's "personal foundations" operate with a hands-on approach. For example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been a driving force behind various controversial education reforms, including the promotion of charter schools, standardized testing, and teacher evaluation systems based on student test scores. The foundation funds research that aligns with its goals and uses this research to lobby for policy changes, often presenting these initiatives as the solution to a supposedly "failing public education system."
The Current Landscape in South Carolina
South Carolina Republican Tom Davis embodies the broader strategy of diverting public education funds to private entities under the pretense of choice and reform. Similar to DeVos and Weaver, Davis advocates for a privatization agenda that shifts public resources into private hands, thereby reducing the state's responsibility to provide quality public education. Ellen Weaver frequently aligns herself with the General Assembly when discussing her plans to "better serve students," underscoring her commitment to these goals. Meanwhile, MAGA Republican Representative Matt Leber is pushing for the South Carolina Senate to eliminate the "Blaine Amendment" entirely to further advance their privatization efforts.
By framing these efforts as a way to give parents "more choice," supporters mask the underlying intent: to dismantle the public education system and replace it with a market-driven model that prioritizes private interests. This approach is consistent with a long-standing conservative agenda that seeks to reshape public services, including education, along free-market lines. As these privatization efforts continue, critics argue they threaten to undermine public accountability, equity, and access to quality education for all.
Conclusion: A Critical Moment for Public Education
The ongoing debates over public education in South Carolina and across the nation reflect deeper ideological divides over the role of government and the public sector. Advocates of public education argue that it remains a cornerstone of democracy, essential for ensuring equal opportunities and fostering informed citizenship. However, the push for privatization, backed by powerful economic and political interests, poses a significant challenge to this vision, raising crucial questions about the future of education in America.
Support CUBN Today: Empower Progressive Black-Owned Media
Join us in supporting the Columbia Urban Broadcast Network (CUBN), the only progressive, Black-owned media outlet dedicated to amplifying voices and telling stories from within our community. Your contribution, even as little as $1, can make a meaningful difference. To support, please donate via Cash App at $CUBNSC. Together, let's continue to uplift our community and ensure its stories are told with integrity and authenticity.
Commentaires