COLUMBIA--Gov. Mark Sanford's school-choice plan was nearly gutted by a House panel Monday as lawmakers trimmed it to a pilot program affecting only two of the state's 86 school districts.

The bill's approval sets the stage for a contentious House floor debate.

Sanford's proposal, unveiled last year, would have allowed parents to receive tax credits to defray the cost of private school tuition, home-schooling or transferring to another public school.

But the House Ways and Means Committee adopted an amendment by Rep. Adam Taylor, R-Laurens, that instructs the Department of Education to select one of the wealthiest school districts and one of the poorest districts for a test run.

The bill also was changed to limit an individual's tax-deductible donation to scholarship organizations to $10,000. Those donations could be made to private schools or public schools under another amendment that was approved.

A final tweak maintained funding of groups, such as local fire departments, that typically receive portions of the tax money.

In many ways, though, Taylor's compromise was the less-desired change. A consensus had built around an amendment co-sponsored by Shirley Hinson, R-Goose Creek, that would have given vouchers or tax credits only to students at below-average or failings schools.

It failed on a tie vote. Rep. Annette Young, R-Summerville, likely would have supported that amendment, but she was absent from the meeting.

"It at least gets it to the floor and allows everyone to debate it," Taylor said after the vote.

Sanford's spokesman Will Folks said the changes go against everything the governor advocated with the original legislation.

"The governor is going to keep pushing for as many choices for as many parents as possible," he said. "Two school districts -- that's not school choice."

The groups that have advocated the bill from the start are skeptical of the education department's ability to manage the program.

"Unfortunately, opponents will make it fail," said Denver Merrill, spokesman for South Carolinians for Responsible Government, referring to the Department of Education.

Jim Foster, spokesman for the department, dismissed Merrill's assertion. "We're not in the business of sabotaging laws that are passed by the General Assembly," he said. "That would be unprofessional and unethical."

These comments by supporters and opponents of the legislation afterward reflected the tone and tenor of the debate in the meeting.

At times, lawmakers sparred with raised voices as the issues of race and affluence bubbled to the surface of the debate.

"This is as important a matter that any of you have dealt with in your years here," an impassioned Rep. Bill Cotty, D-Columbia, told fellow committee members.

The fervor of the meeting is sure to continue on the House floor, where proponents are still hopeful that they can garner enough support to revert the bill back to its original form.

But many lawmakers seem skeptical about those possibilities.

The original bill "was too much to try to do at once," said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston. "I don't anticipate the bill will be changed back on the floor."