Sen. Scott Op-ed Highlights Importance of Education Savings Accounts to School Choice

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Dr. Mick Zais, former deputy and acting U.S. Secretary of Education, penned an op-ed in the Post and Courier discussing school choice and the benefit of Education Savings Accounts for students in South Carolina. 

Commentary: SC students lose in fight over education savings accounts

The Post and Courier

By Senator Tim Scott and Dr. Mick Zais

We live in a society where we can personalize anything based on our individual needs and preferences, whether it’s the channels we watch, the food we order or the cars we drive. Ironically, there remains so much resistance to parents being able to choose the education that is best-suited to help their children succeed.

No two children are the same. Each child has different interests, talents and needs. So what should we expect from a one-size-fits-all school system where every child learns the same material, on the same schedule, in the same way? Mediocrity, at best — and that’s exactly what we’re getting.

Only 26% of eighth graders are proficient in math, and just 31% are proficient in reading. South Carolina’s eighth graders ranked 39th in math proficiency and 38th in reading proficiency nationwide. Our students deserve better.
 
Disastrous school closures galvanized the most powerful interest group in education: parents. Now, more than ever, parents are exercising their right to oversee their children’s education. They want a say in where, how, what and by whom their children are taught. As a result, school choice — in its many forms — is rapidly expanding across the country, including here in South Carolina.

In South Carolina, we are fortunate to have 95 charter schools serving 49,000 students. Another 49 schools are in the planning stage to help serve the 15,000 students on waiting lists. Charter schools work, and parents know it. From 2009 to 2023, Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes studied more than 2 million students across 29 states, and while it had significant concerns about S.C. charters, it concluded that nationally, charter schools “produce superior student gains despite enrolling a more challenging student population.”

Education savings accounts can provide parents with yet another option. With these scholarships, parents can choose which education best meets their child’s needs from numerous state-approved, public or private providers. These accounts are efficient — the funds go directly to the student’s education, not the school system’s operation.

South Carolina’s program provides opportunities for lower- and middle-income families to attend private K-12 schools, a privilege that affluent families have always enjoyed. Under the program, qualifying students could receive scholarships of up to $6,000 to attend state-approved private schools. But the scholarships are not limited to private school tuition. Public-school students can benefit as well. Parents are permitted to use these dollars to pay transfer fees between school districts, or to pay for individual classes or services. Parents can also use the dollars to pay for textbooks, tutoring, computers, online courses, transportation and other instructional expenses. This year, nearly 2,000 South Carolina students used these scholarships. And the number of scholarships was set to increase to 10,000 next year and 15,000 the year after.

However, much of that came to a halt when South Carolina’s Supreme Court ruled that using money from the program for private school tuition violates our state constitution because it provides taxpayer dollars directly to private schools. We disagree. The scholarships do not fund schools; they fund students. And the parents of the students can direct the money to an educational provider of their choice.

Using food stamps, a single mom can choose the grocery store from which she will buy her family’s food. Using Medicare, a senior can choose the hospital from which he will receive care. Using  federal and state grants, a low-income student can choose the college she will attend. The Education Scholarship Trust Fund program was no different. The South Carolina Legislature thought it wise to give parents the ability to choose the best education for their child.

Relatedly, the court’s decision also begs the question: If the scholarships for K-12 education are unconstitutional, what other programs are? Is the LIFE scholarship unconstitutional because a student can use it to attend Presbyterian College? Is the SC HOPE scholarship unconstitutional because a student can use it to attend Bob Jones University? Is the Palmetto Fellows program unconstitutional because a student can use it to attend Newberry College? Is South Carolina’s tuition grants program unconstitutional because it can be used at private institutions?

In the back-and-forth between the court and the Legislature, families are caught in the crosshairs. For many, South Carolina’s program was a chance to escape a one-size-fits-all system and find a school that meets the unique needs of their child. This is especially true for low-income families whose students are often trapped in perennially failing schools.

School choice is a lifeline to opportunity. Whether in the form of charters, education scholarships or other programs, we must continue the work of making educational freedom a reality for all students. Students and their parents are counting on us.

Click here to read the op-ed.