Composite story
SC oversight panel says first-year voucher scores are too thin to judge
Columbia, South CarolinaPublished 26 Sep 2026
The Education Oversight Committee could not evaluate 2024-25 Education Scholarship Trust Fund results after only a few hundred tests were usable, while the program grew toward 15,000 students.
South Carolina’s Education Oversight Committee says it cannot judge how Education Scholarship Trust Fund students performed in 2024-25 because only about 286 of roughly 2,900 first-year results were usable. The Department of Education says that gap is attrition, testing exemptions, and the committee’s own screening, not a failure to collect records. Lawmakers have put about $200 million to $210 million into the program, which this year offers $7,634 scholarships to 15,000 students. A fuller report is planned for December.
Disputed facts
None yet.
Shared opinions
None yet.
Disputed opinions
None yet.
SC voucher program faces broader scrutiny over spending controls, testing gaps
Published 22 Sep 2026 accessed 26 Sep 2026
Facts
The committee said testing data from the voucher program must improve.
The committee said spending controls on the vouchers need to be tighter.
Meka Childs said the department is adding guardrails against improper voucher spending.
The clawback Childs described covers only money still in a family account, not funds already spent.
State education officials faced pointed questions on Sept. 21 from Sen. Ross Turner and other members.
Members had expected a Sept. 21 presentation on 2024-25 voucher test results.
The questions came at an Education Oversight Committee subcommittee that evaluates K-12 test results.
The committee then turned to financial controls and enforcement.
Under the 2025 law, private-school students can use vouchers for tuition.
Pender said students can buy laptops with the money even when a district like Beaufort already provides them.
Collins said the state is telling families to take the money.
Childs said the department flags anomalous transactions and can stop payment through ClassWallet.
Rep. Terry Alexander questioned whether the voucher law’s enforcement is strong enough.
Childs said leftover quarterly funds go to a student on the waiting list when someone is removed.
Childs said the department sets new limits when meetings, the community, or stakeholders flag a problem.
Department officials said 452 children were under the testing age or exempt because of a disability.
Childs said she had not known about the laptop situation in Beaufort.
Collins said the numbers are not adding up.
Childs did not give a count of students removed.
Yow’s team is at odds with the department over the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and the Stanford 10.
Dana Yow offered recommendations to improve the data and speed up reporting.
Yow said requiring South Carolina assessments would take a change in state law.
Yow said some problems were expected.
Opinion
Rep. Neal Collins said the program should not have grown without hard data on its effectiveness.
Rep. Shannon Erickson said the program needs time to continue developing.
Sen. Ross Turner said accountability is the whole argument.
Melissa Pender said she has a problem expanding a program the committee does not control.
Pender asked whether those purchases are good stewardship of taxpayer money.
Erickson said the program is like a ship still in the waves after a hurricane, and that they can get through it.
SC gave vouchers to thousands of students. Why can’t it measure their progress?
Published 17 Sep 2026 accessed 26 Sep 2026
Facts
The performance evaluation was supposed to be published last year.
In April an independent oversight agency opened an investigation after lawmakers objected to scholarships for home-educated students.
More than a third of first-year recipients withdrew or were removed over eligibility.
The program pays for K-12 students enrolled outside their zoned public schools.
At least one voucher recipient was later charged with defrauding the program.
Rep. Neal Collins said the delay in releasing achievement data reinforced his concerns about the program.
Legislators have also raised alarms about screening applicants and how participants spend the money.
Most of the money spent went to electronics and instructional supplies.
The department defended how it ran the program and acknowledged data-quality problems in the first year.
Superintendent Ellen Weaver told lawmakers that screenshots and odd files from parents made the delays unavoidable.
The department called the first year a disrupted “Year Zero.”
The department said the committee’s findings confirmed fixes it had already started for 2025-26.
Schools must test students in grades 3 through 12 each year and send the results to the department.
Recipients may spend the money on tuition, tutoring, technology, and transportation.
The department first sent assessment data to the committee in late February, about two months after the first report was due.
Lawmakers wrote the voucher law in 2023 and again two years later.
As recently as July, a committee spokeswoman said the analysis would come out in mid-September.
Both agencies said 2025-26 voucher assessment data had been exchanged over the weekend.
Yow said the first year of a program like this brings challenges.
Opinion
The State called the data problem the latest in a series of issues that have plagued the program.
Collins said transparency and accountability should not be optional when public money is involved.
Yow said it was the committee’s first year too.
S.C. lawmakers, education officials clash over voucher results
Published 22 Sep 2026 accessed 26 Sep 2026
Facts
Collins said that if that is right, about 90 percent had no usable assessment, so lawmakers cannot judge the return.
The department told WIS the 2,879 enrollment figure was not the student count at the end of 2024-25.
The department said withdrawals, moves, and returns to zoned schools left 1,440 students at year’s end.
The department said the committee dropped 177 early-grade tests and 242 approved exams, including the Iowa, Stanford 10, and Classic Learning Test, plus scores outside a narrow window.
On the 1,124 renewals, the department pointed to timelines in state code section 59-8-115.
The department said it accounted for the remaining 629 students.
The department said accounts are frozen and cannot spend scholarship money if required scores are missing.
The department said 2024-25 was the first year and legal fights disrupted it.
The department said public scores such as SC READY often are not available until August, after the next year has started.
Act 11 restored private schools for 2025-26 and put score reporting back on those schools.
Davíd Martínez, a University of South Carolina education-finance professor, told WIS that tracking public dollars needs solid baselines.
Martínez said usable scores from 10 percent of students are not enough for comparisons.
Education finance experts said the lack of comparable data leaves taxpayers without basic answers.
Martínez said a real evaluation has further requirements.
The department said it cannot show growth because a prior-year test was not required to enroll in 2024-25.
The department sent 2025-26 assessment records to the committee on Sept. 12.
The department cited parent surveys showing 92 percent satisfaction among 1,668 respondents and a net promoter score of 90.
Opinion
Collins called the program unconstitutional and ineffective and said it should end.
Martínez said taxpayers should worry about how the money is spent.
Martínez said the General Assembly should put standard accountability in place before sending more money.
Martínez said judging the program is not a simple choice between expanding it and eliminating it.
Martínez said lawmakers should look at how data are gathered and close the holes.