The 46 students at North Charleston's Montessori Day School work on their lessons to the tunes of Mozart and move at an individual pace, charting their progress by using hands-on materials such as blocks, beads and maps.

The scene is far removed from that in traditional public school classrooms, and school director Alexandria Ravenel said that's by design.

"The families here just want something different for their children," Ravenel said.

But attending the private Montessori school on Leeds Avenue comes at a cost. The school's tuition averages $5,000 and will jump to $5,500 next year. Even though more than one-third of the families receive tuition assistance, the price tag still is too high for some parents who live in the school's working-class neighborhood.

Proponents of school choice say they think students across the Palmetto State should have education options that extend beyond their traditional neighborhood schools. The choices, they say, are especially bleak in poor, rural areas where public schools consistently fail to meet federal and state accountability measures.

Still, many parents are forced to keep their children in low- performing schools because of a lack of options. Private schools remain too expensive, and solutions such as charter and magnet schools don't exist in some regions of the state.

The candidates for state superintendent of education have different ideas on how to address the school choice issue. Three Republicans ? Karen Floyd, Elizabeth Moffly and Kerry Wood ? said they don't necessarily oppose using public money to provide families with tuition tax credits at private schools.

$4,500 credits

Last week, for the second year in a row, the South Carolina House defeated a proposal to provide vouchers toward private school tuition. The measure would have given $4,500 in private school tuition credits to students in low-income households who attend unsatisfactory and failing public schools. The proposal also offered $1,000 to help others move to private schools from their home public school districts.

Despite the bill's defeat, a vocal contingent of lawmakers seems determined to file new versions of legislation with the same school choice theme during future sessions. The election of a new state superintendent this year could serve as the tipping point in the debate, especially if the winner's view on school choice differs from the anti-voucher stance of outgoing state Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum.

Of the superintendent candidates, Moffly is the strongest advocate of the voucher plan. The Mount Pleasant real estate agent said she thinks public schools have lost their focus and spend too much time dealing with federal and state mandates. Moffly proposes diverting lottery funds from higher education to the K-12 area and using some of those proceeds to offer substantive scholarships to low-income families interested in private schools.

Floyd said it would be "fundamentally wrong" to tell parents they have no options beyond an unsatisfactory public school, and she hopes to create a "template of choice" with all options receiving consideration.

The Spartanburg public relations executive has received endorsements from Sanford and other officials who back the tuition tax credit plan, and she said she'll follow whatever model is adopted by the General Assembly as long as it advances student achievement, holds public and private education providers accountable, offers choice within the public school system and complies with federal laws prohibiting discriminatory activities.

"I want parents to have the opportunity to choose for their child, and today, by virtue of ZIP code or socioeconomic status, many families and children do not have those choices," she said.

Wood also said he favors school choice and isn't against a tuition tax credit for private schools, but he said he thinks the state superintendent should be responsible for managing public schools. The computer programmer from Lexington County said he'd focus on improving unsatisfactory public schools by offering pay incentives to teachers who opt to stay at those schools for five years.

Two other Republican candidates for the top education job, Bob Staton and Mike Ryan, do not support using public money for private schools. Staton, the former chairman of the state Education Oversight Committee, said he's a strong proponent of choice, but within the public school system. He said expanding charter schools and offering open enrollment across district lines would enhance educational choice and allow families to not feel "restricted" to a failing school.

Insufficient amount

Ryan, an assistant principal at Wando High School, is outspoken in saying a private school tax tuition plan wouldn't help improve low-performing public schools. He also said a tuition tax credit in the range of $4,500 would not be effective for the middle class, as that level of funding would not come close to covering tuition at most private schools or provide transportation for students.

The five Republicans will face off in the June 13 primary, with Democratic candidate Jim Rex and Libertarian Tim Moultrie set to challenge the Republican winner in November's general election. Moultrie said he supports the tax credit plan and thinks it would help parents "purchase the education they feel best suits the needs of their children."

Rex, the former president of Columbia College, said he wants to develop a "new system of innovation" within public schools, looking at ideas including single-gender classrooms, Montessori-style learning and team-teaching efforts.

Joining with Republicans Staton and Ryan, Rex said he does not support any proposal that takes away resources from public schools. He said he would oppose any plan by legislators to reintroduce private school tax credits.

"I think it would be a mistake and cause irrevocable damage to our public school system," the race's lone Democrat said. "I would hate to see South Carolina become a petri dish for an unfair, unaccountable, unequal and unaffordable approach."

Reach Mindy B. Hagenat mhagen@postandcourier.com or 937-5433.