Tuition tax credit bill

Parents who send their children to private schools would get $1,160 less in tax credits under a greatly revised version of an endangered tuition tax credit bill backed by Gov. Mark Sanford.

Critics say the revision also would provide even less accountability for how those tax dollars are spent at private schools.

Supporters of the so-called Put Parents in Charge bill — the legislation that has most galvanized public and State House attention this year — could introduce the updated version today.

They say the revision is an attempt to address concerns of lawmakers and others who worry the bill’s sweeping changes would hurt public schools and drain money from other state programs.

Those concerns have prompted key House leaders and many lawmakers — Republicans and Democrats — to shy away from the bill, which is idling in a House committee.

Supporters hope the new bill can breathe life into a concept that has not been buoyed by high-profile boosterism from Sanford, who championed the plan in his State of the State address, or by a State House rally of hundreds of supporters last week.

Speaker Pro Tem Doug Smith, R-Spartanburg, the bill’s primary sponsor; House Majority Leader Jim Merrill, R-Charleston; and Rep. Shirley Hinson, R-Berkeley, will unveil the updated legislation at a news conference today at the State House.

According to a copy of the bill obtained by The State, parents would receive a $2,040 tax credit — down from $3,200 in the original bill.

“What you see is a consistent willingness on the part of supporters of more choices for parents to work with folks who had concerns about the concept,” Sanford spokesman Will Folks said.

But critics of the bill said the revision represents a minor change to a major catastrophe for public education.

“They’re admitting that they misled people about this tax experiment not hurting public school finances,” said Inez Tenenbaum, state education superintendent. “They’re conceding that it was never about helping low-income families, and they’re taking back even their token gestures toward accountability and oversight.”

She and other opponents say the revised bill still would take money out of public schools without lowering the cost of education to the state.

When an individual student leaves a classroom, that school still must pay the teacher, utilities and other costs of educating the other children in the class. Taking away $2,040 per student instead of $3,200 does not solve the problem, Tenenbaum said.

But Folks said lowering the tax credit addresses those concerns. It leaves more money behind for schools to pay for such “fixed costs” as teacher salaries and benefits, and utilities.

“Under the new bill, the tax credit doesn’t take money away from anything other than the direct cost of that individual kid being in the classroom,” Folks said.

The new version also deletes two parts of the bill dealing with accountability, which critics say weren’t strong enough to begin with.

The original version called for an annual evaluation of the program. That language remains in the new version, but a requirement that the evaluation assess the academic performance of public and private school students was deleted.

The evaluation also would no longer compare the “relative efficiency” of public and private schools and compare college acceptance rates among public and private school students.

“It goes in the opposite direction of accountability,” said Molly Spearman, executive director of the S.C. Association of School Administrators.

Supporters could not explain those changes Wednesday, but Education Department spokesman Jim Foster and other opponents believe the language is an attempt to soothe fears of private school administrators who did not want to release academic data to the government.

Denver Merrill, spokesman for the pro-tax-credit South Carolinians for Responsible Government, said he was not familiar enough with the new version of the bill to discuss it.

Rep. Dan Tripp, R-Greenville, who was helping recruit co-sponsors, said he, too, did not know enough to talk.

“Conceptually, I’m in favor of school choice,” Tripp said. “It would be my goal in this whole thing to be able to vote for this thing on the floor of the House.”

Tripp referred questions to Jim Merrill or Larry Marchant, lobbyist for Denver Merrill’s organization. Efforts to reach bothJim Merrill and Marchant were unsuccessful.

Reach Gould Sheinin at (803) 771-8658 or asheinin@thestate.com