Education Savings Account
South Carolina Education Scholarship Trust Fund Program
-
Enacted:2023
-
Launched:2024
Program Stats
-
58%
Students Eligible -
2%
Funded Eligibility -
10,000
Participating Students (2025-26) -
$7,500
Average Account Value (2025-26) -
54%
Public School Funding -
541
Providers
Program Summary
This program provides some South Carolina families with ESAs to cover educational expenses for their children. For the 2025-2026 school year, eligibility is limited to those with a family income of 300% of the FPL ($96,450 for a family of four). The income limit for the 2026-2027 school year will be increased to 500% of the FPL ($160,750 for a family of four). Legislation enacted in 2025 restores the right of participants to use account funds to cover private school tuition, which had been barred by a 2024 state Supreme Court ruling. The account cap is now $7,500. Participants need not have first attended a public school. The program is capped at 10,000 participants for the 2025-2026 school year, and the cap will be at least 15,000 for the 2026-2027 school year.
Funding Mechanism: Appropriation by the legislature into a restricted fund
Universal Eligibility: ❌
Universal Usage: ✅
Universal Funding: ✅
Truly Universal: ❌
(Last updated December 16, 2025)
Use of Funds
Qualifying expenses for ESAs include tuition and fees at approved South Carolina independent schools and online education service providers or courses; textbooks, curriculum, or other instructional materials; tutoring services approved by the DOE; computer hardware or other technological devices; fees for nationally norm-referenced testing, AP exams, or similar assessments; industry certification exams; examinations related to college or university admission; educational services and therapies for students with disabilities from a licensed or accredited practitioner or provider; unbundled courses, services, extracurricular activities, and tutoring from a public school district or charter school; contracted teaching services and education classes approved by the DOE; fees for interdistrict public schools transfers; up to $3,000 for transportation associated with services from an eligible provider; school uniforms; any consumables and items necessary to complete a curriculum or that are otherwise applicable to a course of study that has been approved by the department; and any other educational expense approved by the DOE. All funds remain in the student’s account until the student graduates from high school or turns 22 years old, whichever occurs first.
(Last updated December 16, 2025)
Program Guidelines
View program requirements for parents, schools, and scholarship granting organizations by clicking on each hyperlink.
(Last updated December 16, 2025)
Governing Statutes
South Carolina Code §§ 59-8-110 – 59-8-170.
(Last updated April 21, 2025)
Legal History
This program was partially halted by the South Carolina Supreme Court. On October 26, 2023, a group of plaintiffs including the South Carolina Education Association and the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP filed a Petition for Original Jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of South Carolina challenging the state’s ESA program. Eidson v. South Carolina Department of Education, No. 2023-1673 (S.C. 2023). The court ruled that parents may no longer use the program for private school tuition but may still use it for other educational services, concluding that the structure of the current ESA program causes tuition payments to be a “direct benefit” for religious schools and “private educational institutions” in violation of Art. XI, Sec. 4 of the state constitution. Critically, the South Carolina Supreme Court faulted the program because it “does not open the market for the scholarships to all public and private institutions, but only those the Department chooses and only for students who agree not to attend a public school in their district.” Excluding use of ESTF to pay for transfer to a different public school left only private schools as potential recipients of tuition payments under the program. “This is not the kind of free trade envisioned by Adam Smith or Milton Friedman,” the Court wrote.
(Last updated October 1, 2024)