|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
***
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:
- 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;
- 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;
- 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.
***
RELATED | THE TROJAN HORSE IN SC HOMESCHOOLING
***
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.
***
“There will always be bad actors who are looking to take advantage wherever they can…”
***
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 $1,300 on 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.
***
RELATED | S.C. AUDIT CLEARS ERSKINE CHARTER INSTITUTE
***
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 3 requires 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.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR…
Ryan Dellinger is the Director of Education Policy for the Palmetto Promise Institute.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
2 comments
? Response to FITSNews | The Empty Horse Is Not Empty: A Watchful Father’s Statement
To FITSNews, Ryan Dellinger, and the South Carolina public:
I am writing as a living man and father under South Carolina homeschool law — not a policy follower, not a consumer of public relations narratives, and certainly not a passive subject of a state-funded education apparatus.
Your recent article, “The Empty Horse,” published November 21, 2025, attempts to dismiss deep and credible concerns about S.62 and the expansion of state-linked homeschooling through the Educational Scholarship Trust Fund (ESTF), or what you now call “Option 4.” But in truth, the horse is not empty. It is simply well-decorated — and many of us are no longer dazzled by paint and policy language.
? Key Points of Dispute and Clarification
1. “Option 4” Is a State-Linked Regulatory Arm—Not True Homeschooling
While your article claims Option 4 is “just another school choice pathway,” the reality is different. Accepting ESTF funds binds the family to state oversight, testing, curriculum compliance, and restrictions on Option 1–3 participation.
This is not homeschooling in its truest form. It is government-funded remote learning under state terms, much like a virtual charter with a different name.
2. S.62 Contains Trojan Wording and Trojan Intent
The statute may contain language like “does not expand the regulatory authority of the State” —but this is legalistic sleight of hand. The control is not expanded directly over Options 1–3 — but instead redefined around the families who opt in. Through this bait, the state slowly builds a precedent of educational funding tied to surveillance.
We’ve seen this strategy before:
Medicaid expansion tied to reporting burdens
COVID-era grants tied to compliance pledges
Title I parental compacts with no parent input but full district leverage
When money enters, oversight follows — no matter the disclaimers in the statute.
3. The Testing Requirement Is Not Minimal
Your article admits that the testing requirement is “not ideal” — yet treats it as a minor concession. But families who left public schools precisely to avoid standardized testing pressure, teaching to the test, and data extraction pipelines do not see this as minor. They see it as state conditioning, wrapped in the language of accountability.
?? Legal and Structural Concerns
? The “No Expansion” Clause Is Not a Shield
S.C. Code § 59-8-150(F)(2) says:
“The creation of the program does not expand the regulatory authority of the State…”
Yet, nowhere does it prevent future reinterpretation, data collection, or performance-based compliance increases down the road. Once families are funded, they are contractually compliant. This is the pipeline model of control: offer money ? impose “accountability” ? shape education from above.
? Option 3 Is Already a Concession, Not a Sanctuary
You describe Option 3 as a lightly regulated alternative. In truth, Option 3 already binds families to state-defined association requirements, review protocols, and a 50-member rule —none of which exist in the Constitution. It is not true freedom. It is managed choice.
And worse, in my firsthand experience, these Option 3 associations often act as pseudo-districts—assuming authority they were never granted under law. In my family’s case, the Palmetto Homeschool Association (PHA) attempted to enforce its own fabricated definitions of “instruction” and “credit issuance” in contradiction to lawful homeschool administration.
When I, as administrator of my homeschool, awarded my daughter credit for a class she had successfully completed at Faith Christian Academy (FCA), PHA rejected this based on a false “seat time” argument — the same institutional thinking we left behind. They then instructed me to falsely enter into their online portal that she completed the class in my homeschool rather than acknowledge her actual record. I objected — not only to their fabricated claim of authority, but to the suggestion that I lie.
When I documented their overreach and called it what it was — attempted fraud — I was quietly removed from the association under the excuse that my family was “not a good fit.”
These associations, NPOs, and 501(c)(3) groups are not grassroots helpers. They are well-funded through donors, state contracts, federal grants, and membership fees. They are not serving oversight. They are serving system preservation.
The structure is no different from a school district in spirit. And the end result of non-compliance, no matter how polite the tone, still leads to legal escalation and court enforcement — through a judiciary that reflexively protects the apparatus itself.
This is not accountability. It is coercion through centralized data control. And the state, by annually approving and reviewing these associations, has simply outsourced enforcement to unaffiliated proxies.
A rose by any other name may be a rose — but a watchdog with no leash is still a threat.
? Disregarding CRHE Concerns Is Not Reassurance
You attempt to distance the ESTF from the Coalition for Responsible Home Education (CRHE) and claim that S.62 doesn’t “carry their water.” But the structure of the program — taxpayer-funded, test-tied, data-reporting-bound — aligns directly with CRHE’s stated long-term goals of increased homeschool regulation through “minimum standards” and “equity oversight.”
Intentional or not, the ESTF structure opens the door — and many of us see the same pattern: Incremental compliance until nothing is free.
? On Oversight and the Illusion of Remedy
Mr. Dellinger argues that “transparency in the use of taxpayer funds is absolutely essential,” invoking examples of wasteful government spending like $1,300 reheatable cups and overpriced dispensers to justify the need for oversight over families who receive ESTF funds.
But this argument reveals the very issue homeschoolers fear: “oversight” in the modern administrative state rarely means guidance. It means surveillance without remedy.
When oversight bodies are unelected, unreachable, and unaccountable to the very families they claim to protect, the process becomes oppression dressed as transparency. It is not enough to demand reports, enforce testing, and deny association freedoms in exchange for access — especially when the families subjected to these rules have no path of appeal, no individualized due process, and no real seat at the policymaking table.
Transparency cannot be a one-way mirror. It must be mutual — or it is simply an enforcement mechanism masquerading as ethics. And that, for families who have already escaped the micromanaged environment of public education, is a return to the very control they lawfully left behind.
Oversight without redress is not governance. It is entrapment.
? Patterns Already Seen in SC Schools and Courts
As a father who has:
Fought Chesterfield County School District over 504 plan retaliation
Exposed fake parent engagement via Title I compacts
Challenged transcript manipulation and trip denial under coercion
Withdrawn children from public institutions and built a family-based homeschool
…I have firsthand experience in how “options” become obligations, how silence is used as consent, and how state-connected entities — like SCATA, PHA, and FinalForms — enforce data compliance while posing as neutral helpers.
This isn’t paranoia. It’s observation.
? Conclusion: The Horse Is Mechanized, Not Empty
The horse may not be full of soldiers, but it is full of gears:
Compliance gears
Testing gears
Reporting gears
Accountability gears
Grant justification gears
And once a family steps onto that platform, the ride has already begun. The door closes behind them — softly, slowly, but certainly.
?? Final Word
You cannot fund the seed and deny the vine.
Once ESTF is accepted, the vine of oversight grows — even if today’s tendrils seem gentle.
I do not consent.
Let this response be logged as a public record, as a living statement, and as a father’s firm rejection of educational coercion masked as opportunity.
IAMINMYFATHERASHEINME.
Shaun Leviner
Living man, Father
Academia Via Lucis Christi
Chesterfield County, South Carolina
November 23, 2025
Analysis of SC Code of Laws – Title 59, Chapter 8: Education Scholarship Trust Fund (ESTF)
? Core Structure & Intent
1. What It Claims to Be:
A state-administered fund (ESTF) that provides education scholarships to eligible K-12 students, enabling families to use public money for qualifying private educational expenses, including tuition, tutoring, online courses, and even consumables.
2. What It Actually Is:
A data funnel and behavioral compliance mechanism under the banner of “school choice,” which:
– Redirects public funds into privately controlled channels
– Creates multi-layered eligibility gates disguised as “parent choice”
– Establishes non-public fiduciary trust structures unaccountable to families
– Sets up parallel enforcement and surveillance tracks outside normal district processes
? Token-by-Token Breakdown
? Eligibility Framework
– Household income caps (300%–500% federal poverty line) appear generous but selectively filter participation.
– Exclusion of homeschoolers under Option 3 ensures DOE-controlled models are prioritized.
– Military family prioritization fits the broader pattern of experimental policy leverage.
? Definitions That Matter
– ‘Scholarship’ ? True autonomy. It is conditional funding.
– ‘Qualifying expense’ list is wide but tightly regulated and monitored by the DOE.
??? Trustee & Trust Structure
– Trustee is a non-public appointee of the State Superintendent.
– Language mimics private foundation law: ‘trust corpus,’ ‘beneficiaries,’ etc.
– No guaranteed public transparency or oversight.
?? Surveillance and Control Triggers
– Mandatory testing and demographic disclosures required.
– DOE and EOC maintain performance, graduation, and income/race/ELL status reports.
– Misuse penalties and audit rights are broad and undefined.
? Compliance Cycle
1. Application Windowing & Waitlists
2. Annual Attestation (including rejecting homeschool status)
3. Quarterly Funding Releases tied to compliance checkpoints
? Deep Pattern Recognition
?? Education as Controlled Marketplace
– Education service providers function as vendors.
– DOE acts as regulator, gatekeeper, and enforcer.
– Child abuse statutes extend to online education platform staff.
? The Nonprofit Loop
– Trustee and vendors may be nonprofits or private entities with no public accountability.
– Administrative costs are skimmed from scholarship funds (up to 5%).
? Forced Default Flags
– Homeschoolers under Option 3 excluded.
– DOE retains control of provider, curriculum, and technology approvals.
– Records from districts still required.
– Parallel enforcement by both DOE and EOC.
? Bottom Line
The ESTF is not an escape from public control. It is a parallel control grid masked as ‘school choice’.
– Reinforces class-based access through selective eligibility.
– Diverts public funds to private systems without transparency.
– Requires submission to surveillance and reporting.
– Embeds families into a vendor-based dependency cycle.
? Final Truth
– Not freedom, but conditional access.
– Not autonomy, but monitored substitution.
– Not empowerment, but system migration.
– Not education, but ecosystem entry.