The push for school choice-centered programs has been increasing across the US. South Carolina has had an ongoing battle and controversy over its voucher system that started last year and reached an endpoint (for now) this past week when the South Carolina Supreme Court struck down on the voucher program because they considered the program to violate Article XI, Section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution that states:

“No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.” 

After this, many news sources and media came out quickly to spread the news; here is where we can see different perspectives on what is going on. Even though all news reporting stays as neutral as possible, word choice is important. We can see how they feel about what is happening and how specific wording leads their readers in a specific direction. School choice programs have been around for a long time, with countries like Chile adopting them in the 80s. They have proven little improvement in academic achievement and show more signs of perpetuating social inequality than empowering families by allowing them to choose which school is best for their child. This is never really brought into conversation when these programs are tried to get passed in different states in the US. 

When the news hit this past Wednesday (September 11th), multiple news anchors came to the front to discuss the issue. South Carolina is a known conservative-leaning state; the South Carolina Daily Gazette has an article out hours after the ruling titled “SC high court says taxpayer dollars cannot pay private tuition.“ This article stays away from the legal part of the conversation as much as possible and focuses on South Carolina Superintendent of Education Ellen Weaver’s emotional reaction to the ruling. It mainly reports on how disappointed she is with the ruling and how she believes this decision is going to be extremely harmful to families; some families had already received the voucher money and now will only be allowed to use it for tutoring and not on private education, it seems to try to balance out the reporting by talking about the different plans of actions the department of education will take to comply, like halting payments. 

Even though the telling of the emotional reaction of the superintendent is included and could move readers into being voucher program advocates, it does a good job of explaining to the readers some of the other things involved with the decision. However, it does not explain how vouchers can be used negatively except that it was struck down because it violated South Carolina’s Constitution. 

The next day, after the ruling, an article on Black Enterprise was published titled “South Carolina Court Overturns Voucher Law for Private School Education, Governor Warns of ‘Devastating Consequences‘ for Low-Income Families.” This piece deeply delves into the emotional and practical effects of the court’s decision on low-income families, framing it as a major blow. It covers Governor McMaster’s dire warnings about the impact on these families and Superintendent Ellen Weaver’s heartfelt comments on the shift from joy over scholarship funds to the current disappointment. The article stands out by giving substantial weight to Chief Justice Kittredge’s dissent, which criticizes the majority’s decision as contrary to the rule of law. 

It contrasts Kittredge’s views on legislative power and public funding for private institutions, hinting that the ruling might be inconsistent with other public programs. While the article leans conservatively and praises the voucher program’s benefits, it’s unique in its exploration of South Carolina’s educational history, touching on issues like school segregation and constitutional changes. This background adds a deeper layer to understanding the state’s educational laws and their impacts.

None of the articles address how voucher programs have performed in countries where they have been implemented for extended periods. This omission limits the scope of the information provided, focusing primarily on economic aspects, tax implications, and parental choice without considering broader, long-term outcomes. Which would show the reader that programs like  have overall little to no benefits for the majority of low income families that end up having to stay in under resource public school because of the program. 

Pages: 1 2