The Empty Horse: The Threat to SC Homeschooling That Isn’t

This op-ed was originally published in FitsNews.

Recently, an article published in FITSNews argued that the creation of what is essentially an “Option 4” method of homeschooling in South Carolina through the passage of S.62, is a Trojan Horse that opens the door to increased state regulation of all existing homeschooling in the Palmetto State.

But I am pleased to report, that unlike in The Odyssey, this horse is empty, and it is a sincere and useful gift.

The vast majority of the alternatives to traditional public schools in South Carolina are intentionally regulated as lightly as possible. Often, this deregulation comes at the expense of funding.

• Charter schools are public schools that are provided with latitude to try innovative instructional methods and strategies. However, charters do not have bonding authority and cannot access locally derived funds.
• Private schools and religious schools exist almost entirely based on the tuition and fees paid by the students or on philanthropy.
• Finally, parents who wish to homeschool their children need only ensure that they follow the requirements of one of several legal options in order to comply with the state’s compulsory attendance law. Home schools do not receive state funding either.

The creation of an “Educating at Home” program, colloquially referred to “Option 4 homeschooling” under the Educational Scholarship Trust Fund (ESTF), is not a ploy by which the state will send out its tentacles to expand its regulatory authority into Options 1, 2 and 3 homeschools.  In fact, legislators specifically included language in S.62 that demonstrates their commitment to educational freedom – a commitment that we believe extends to homeschooling as well.  S.C. Code Ann. § 59-8-150(F)(1-3) states:

(F) An education service provider, not a public school, is not an agent of the state or federal government, therefore:

1. the department or any other state agency may not regulate the educational program beyond what is set forth in this chapter of an approved education provider that accepts funds from an account;
2. the creation of the program does not expand the regulatory authority of the State, its officers, or a school district to impose regulation of education service providers beyond those necessary to enforce the requirements of the program;
3. the freedom of education service providers to provide for the educational needs of scholarship students without governmental control must not be abridged;

Though the language is specific to education service providers (i.e. the schools or other entities that are paid with ESTF funds), this is not the kind of language that someone would use if they were seeking to tighten regulatory control over specific programs.

Here’s the history: legislators, recognizing and responding to a need, extended a lifeline to families who struggled to afford the curriculum, textbooks, and other costs of homeschooling or who could not maintain the time commitment associated with traditional homeschooling. ESTF provides families with an option to educate their children at home using state trust funds, in exchange for academic assessments and other minimal reporting requirements.

This reporting helps reduce those instances of fraud and waste and can expose those who attempt to take unfair advantage of the new law. The ESTF is funded by public dollars, and the associated oversight with accepting those dollars is universal across the program.  Any parent who receives ESTF dollars is bound by the same accountability and oversight requirements—someone choosing the “Educating at Home” option is no more regulated than a parent choosing a different ESTF education delivery option. Parents simply need to agree to a few items: not to enroll their child in their residentially-zoned public school, to use ESTF funds only for eligible expenses, not to homeschool their child under Options 1, 2, or 3, to take state assessments or a nationally norm-referenced assessment, and to ensure that their child receives instruction in math, science, social studies, and English/language arts.  We understand that the testing requirement is not ideal, and it is a major reason that many parents will opt to homeschool their children under Options 1-3.  However, under ESTF, some form of assessment is essential to ensure that taxpayer funds are being spent for eligible purposes.

As someone who believes firmly that “the government that governs best governs least,” I can appreciate the concerns associated with government reporting requirements.  However, I also believe that transparency in the use of taxpayer funds is absolutely essential.  There will always be bad actors who are looking to take advantage wherever they can.  Consider the numerous instances of wasteful spending of taxpayer funds uncovered over the last few years. The United States Air Force spent $1,300on a single, reheatable coffee cup on one of their aircraft.  Boeing sold soap dispensers to the Air Force at an 8,000% premium. As for fraud, earlier this year, 29 people pleaded guilty in a wire fraud scheme that netted them nearly $5 million in COVID-19 unemployment benefits across 8 states, including South Carolina. The rotten apple spoils the bunch, so we must have oversight.

We should clarify, however, that although oversight of traditional homeschools (i.e. Options 1, 2 or 3) in South Carolina is significantly less than for traditional public schools, it is not zero.Option 1 homeschooling requirements are the most burdensome— requiring parents to meet certain eligibility requirements to be able to teach their children, needing permission from their resident public school district to do so, and requiring annual state testing. Options 2 and 3 are similar in their oversight structure – Option 2 homeschooling requires that “…the instruction is conducted under the auspices of the South Carolina Association of Independent Home Schools,” and Option 3requires that “…the instruction is conducted under the auspices of an association for home schools which has no fewer than fifty members and meets the requirements of this section.” Both Options 2 and 3 require the state to annually review the standards of the homeschool association to ensure they meet certain minimum requirements.  Rather than the government directly regulating and having oversight over homeschools, as they do in Option 1, the government has simply delegated accountability authority to other entities in Options 2 and 3. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and the same is true for accountability.

We cannot speak to the intent of the Coalition for Responsible Home Education, which was referenced in the previous FITSNews article as it relates to government regulation and oversight of homeschools. We can, however, reassure FITSNews readers that the “Option 4” program created under the ESTF is not intended to “carry CRHE’s water.” ESTF simply provides another viable school choice option to those who wish to educate their children at home but would struggle to do so.

The Trojan Horse argument outlined in the original article published in this space discredits the many hours that lawmakers, their staff, and advocates spent crafting the ESTF program, all with the singular goal of making sure that families are able to choose the education that works best for their child without government interference.

This horse is empty. The gift is genuine. It is safe to open the gates.