♪ Welcome to "This Week in South Carolina," I'm Gavin Jackson.

This week the 2025 legislative session ended and we get perspective from Democratic Representative Jermaine Johnson and the Republican perspective from House Education Committee Chairwoman Shannon Erickson, who is with me right now to talk about some major education bills that passed this session.

Chairwoman, thanks for making time for us.

Thank you.

I had to bring a cheat sheet.

We had so much that we got done in our committee this year.

<I know> It's been a great year.

Gavin Jackson> And one of those big bills was that school choice bill.

That was a major priority that we saw come out of the Senate.

First week in the Senate.

They took that up.

They started working through it, got to the House, and y'all did the same, too.

This is in response to what the Supreme Court said that you all can't send, public dollars to fund private schools.

But y'all have a different perspective on this.

You believe that you found a workaround to this?

So tell us about that bill.

And what's in that bill?

Rep. Shannon Erickson> So the Education Scholarship Trust Fund the premise was not sending money to to private schools, but sending money to children.

It's those eligible children that really, was the key factor.

And that's what we heard from the Supreme Court in our last decision that gave us the roadmap to say, all right, we didn't specify strongly enough that the funds went to the child, and we set up an actual trustee, someone who's not related to, housed in a government entity.

This would be someone who would be contracted with to be that trustee.

The funds go to the child.

It sits an account.

It ceases to be public money when the child receives the money in their account.

That trustee would oversee the expenditures of that.

Now, how does the trigger of the money flow?

The parent fills out the application.

They are either eligible or not eligible.

And when the money comes to the child, they have up to in our bill, 7,500 dollars to be able to choose from a laundry list of educational opportunities that help that specific child.

And that's really, I believe, what kind of captured the hearts and minds of the people that we've been working with on this school choice option.

You can just do tutoring if that's what your child needs.

You could actually transfer to another public school.

Some of them charge fees.

If you're not in their district, you could use those funds to pay those fees.

You can use it for a school, but they all have to have norm reference testing.

There certain parameters, and all of those, that laundry list, all of those vendors, they have to go through an entire process of being approved to be a vendor.

So there's accountability on both sides.

Gavin Jackson> Yeah.

So a major win for Republicans.

The governor signed this bill into law as well.

And so this is, this will, this will originally start with 15,000 students that qualify.

And then you said 7,500 dollars per student.

So when we talk about that money, where does that money coming from?

I know the Senate originally talked about using Education Lottery funds.

This law, this bill, also made a little bit more open ended.

And how will you estimate?

Rep. Shannon Erickson> Well, the good news is, when we started this, you know, four years ago, the House set aside funding with Department of Education in, as they needed it.

And so, there's money sitting there.

We actually have funds there.

And we had allocated in our budgets for the next few cycles.

You know, a penciled in mark of, okay, we've made this commitment.

So it does not draw any education funding from our typical education funding sources.

This is new revenue.

This is revenue that comes directly to this.

<But it's not tax dollars?> You know, they're, it's people's money.

It's the parents money.

Tax dollars belong to the people of the state.

So, there is no government money.

It goes into the child's account.

The child is a citizen.

We do the same thing with our scholarships for higher education.

They go to any college a child wants to go to if they meet the criteria.

And we even do it with our four year olds.

And, we had the book ends.

We didn't have the middle, so now we have the middle.

Gavin Jackson> And when we talk about this funding, are there any concerns from the districts, the school districts that there might be some, loss of funding or any situations like that because of this?

Rep. Shannon Erickson> They actually brought to the table deep concerns about it.

Originally, back, I believe that we have assuaged some of those by setting up the trustee and setting up the other funding stream.

Now any time in education and I've been in education a long time, you have silos.

I mean, we have, push and pull between every type of education you can have because there are finite dollars in the world.

I mean, it's competition.

But, if we want to fund every child and have that child get the best, then we've got to give options.

We're seeing that especially with the ability for the families to choose something that fits best for them.

The child's happier, or the family's happier and we get better results.

Even if that's a public choice.

It's public, private, faith based as long as they are eligible and that's part of the piece.

They have to, you know, have that accountability.

And some folks may not want to do that.

We did limit it this year to be only nonprofits.

<Okay> So there are no for profit programs getting funding in this Gavin Jackson> And you think there's sufficient oversight when it comes to... Rep. Shannon Erickson> They're required to have, random audits, at least one per year.

All of them, all of our vendors.

And we'll pivot to another major win for all this year to one of those on your sheet, The Educator Assistance Act.

This is something you've been working hard for for years.

And, another big priority for y'all, also enjoyed a lot of support bypartisan, unanimous support, I believe.

Tell us about this, this bill soon to be a law what it means for teachers.

The governor signed it yesterday.

<Okay, there we go> Yeah.

I got to get a shout out to our governor.

He said early on in his administration that he was going to work on education and support teachers, and he is doing that.

It is an honor to work with him.

And how quickly he signed those bills is a good indicator of the priority that he sets for our state in that.

So, yeah.

So the Senate picked up the, school choice piece as their first piece of legislation.

The House picked up The Educator Assistance Act as its first piece of legislation.

We'd only passed it four times before.

So, what was one more?

[laughs] And each time, each iteration, you know, you have more collaborators, you have more people come to the table.

But this was literally everybody working together saying, how do we get rid of red tape?

How can we help our teachers not feel inundated with this every five year recertification, which we do to no other profession?

You get your certification now, you keep it, you do your professional development, and that counts towards your recertification.

And you don't have to fill all that paperwork out again.

We worked on contracts because we were asking teachers to sign contracts for a whole year of work without any details, you know, not schools, not age of children, not even salary.

And I don't know many people who would go to work and do that.

I'm blessed to have been around great educators my whole life.

And they do it because it's a calling, not because they're waiting for on that bottom line.

But they still should be treated respectfully and as professionals.

And I don't think there are many professions that we'd see signing a blank contract and saying, yeah, I'll step in and fill your space and do a good job.

Exactly when do you think you might tell me what it is I'm going to make?

<When and where?

Yeah> That's, you know, I think that part of it.

We also took out the law, required that if there were any action of loss of certification, that it had to be at least a year.

I mean, it required that.

We've now given them some flexibility on that so that if there's an issue, the circumstances can match and not be an arbitrary number.

We also have given, ability teachers, silly, really, I mean, crazy that they could not resign due to some kind of family emergency or even a move of their family.

They would quite literally lose their certification if they broke the contract for any reason.

So now they have the ability to submit, my husband, my spouse, my wife, somebody has a job move or I have, a parent that I need to care for, something and they can then leave that certification again.

It's treating those folks like true professionals.

And I'm really proud that we've got that done Gavin Jackson> When you talk about this, you see this as a way to boost recruitment and retention?

<Absolutely> I mean, because I feel like we're always talking about, teacher salaries, which you can bring up in a moment, but, this is just gonna be one more.

I guess, tool in the toolbox to keep people... Rep. Shannon Erickson> It's entirely that, you know, when the state did its Teacher Recruitment and Retention Task Force, and we put so many people in a room, dynamic leaders in education, run by our late and dearly departed, Barbara Nielsen, who did just the lion's share of work.

One of those things was these barriers that pushed teachers out of the classroom or keep them out of the classroom.

And we're kind of taking that as a little bit of a road map and some check marks on those.

Teachers also asked for a leave bank.

They accrue leave, sick time, and most of them don't use it and they lose it.

Now they can donate it and put it into a fund where those people who, they're working side by side need it, can use it, and it's voluntary.

It's not mandatory.

But that's one of the things that came from the discussion.

Gavin Jackson> State employees have that, too.

Yes.

<Exactly> But when we talk about the salaries, what it's looking like for starting teacher pay and also step increases in the budget, as it stands right now?

Rep. Shannon Erickson> Right now, I think everyone will see an increased.

The next increment in our starting teacher to the road to 50,000 is, will be at 48 five.

We've worked together with Chairman Bannister, and, I'm almost as certain as I could be that we'll see the next step in that next session next year.

So I think we're there and everyone else will be receiving a pay increase as well.

That's something I don't think you'll see us letting our foot up on the gas.

As you said, salaries are not, honestly, they're not the number one thing teachers want.

You know what they're loving?

Not having cellphones in their class.

That's probably one of the biggest things we've heard for teachers in the classroom.

Engagement and behavior.

Gavin Jackson> And we have just less than two minutes.

When we talk about, that funding, I mean, 50,000 dollars has been a mark that the governor said.

You see that?

I think you said, keep going the gas with that.

I mean, that's, we want to just keep going.

Okay.

Rep. Shannon Erickson> Absolutely.

I mean, we need to not let that become something that gets stagnant.

And I think we had.

We had, we'd also had a bad practice of putting it into a district and letting districts decide.

Now we're actually telling them that these are specifically for salaries.

Gavin Jackson> And just one more bill before we talk about some politics, but really quick, what do you want to see happen next year?

What are some of your legislative focuses for next year that didn't get done this year?

You have a whole list?

Rep. Shannon Erickson> I've got special stuff I'm working on.

Special education is probably one of them.

We need to really help our, teachers and retain and recruit more.

High school league.

They've promised to sit down and work with us.

And I'm going to hold their feet to the fire and ask them to do that.

They've got to be more accountable.

I'd like to see the students higher on the list of how to work on things than programs.

And I'm hopeful.

I've also got, a charter school reform that I'm working on.

I've got a legislative audit coming from L.A.C.

that I want to see.

I know Senator Henry's been working on his.

I don't have it yet.

So we're going to start that process as well.

On the other side of my committee will be doing, some D.O.T.

modernization, I hope.

Gavin Jackson> Right.

The public works aspect of it.

We talk about your committee, We have 30 seconds, there's a lot of different personalities, both in the committee, in the chamber, in the State House, how do you work together across parties and also internally, to get things done?

30 seconds.

Rep. Shannon Erickson> It's been fantastic.

We have people from all over the state.

So you get a lot of varied personalities, but perspectives and all of them have different jobs and a variety of educational backgrounds.

And really, truly, I thought, oh my gosh, how are we going to mesh this?

We've meshed because they're open and honest.

And the respect and dialog that we have had, we've had civil discourse.

And we can prove that that can happen.

We can disagree and still get along, still work on a product and make it as good as we can do.

And I am so proud of our team.

I really, I hope I've thanked all of them.

I've tried to thank all of them this year.

Been one of the most dynamic, hard working groups of people I've ever been honored to work with.

Gavin Jackson> And the proof is in the pudding.

That's House Education Committee Chairwoman Shannon Erickson.

Thank you.

<Thank you Gavin.

Appreciate that> Joining me now for the Democrat perspective is Richland County Democratic Representative Jermaine Johnson Representative Johnson, thanks for joining us.

Rep. Jermaine Johnson> Thank you so much for having me.

So we are just talking to House Education Committee Chairwoman Shannon Erickson about the House Education Bill.

We're talking about the school voucher bill that during the Senate worked its way through the House.

You were outspoken in the House when that bill was going through.

Tell us about your issues with that bill that's now a law that the governor signed, dealing with school vouchers, education, scholarship accounts.

Well, the main issue that I had with it is that has been deemed unconstitutional, time and time again, and it's like we haven't learned our lesson.

It's like, you know, you touch something hot, and then you realize it was hot, and then you got a spanking for it, and then you go back and say, well, let me see if it's hot and I'll get the same reaction this time.

And you do it again.

And we haven't learned our lesson.

You know, it continues to come back and back and back.

And we continue to fight the same fight.

And I don't understand why we can't understand what's going on and what the Supreme Court is going to rule on this.

I have some issues.

When it came to the transportation parts.

But we also have to, look at individuals who are in these rural communities, in these rural counties that don't have access to private schools or things like that to use the benefits of this voucher program.

So if there's no private school within, you know, 50 to 100 miles for them to get to one of the schools, how are they going to take advantage of these opportunities?

So we have to look at who this is really serving and what the purpose of it is for.

Gavin Jackson> And when you talk about who it's really serving, do you think it's just, it's not getting to the people that folks are saying it should be going to these people who maybe don't have the best public schools, want to have a different opportunity to go to a private school?

Rep. Jermaine Johnson> Right?

So I made that argument on the floor, you know, it was about, well, how my kids down in Gadsden, South Carolina, going to get to a Heathwood Hall or a Hammond?

How are they going to get to these schools?

How these kids in Chester are going to get to these locations?

If there's no private school in their area?

You know, how are they really going to benefit from it?

So that was one of the amendments that I even offered up was to change the amount allocated for transportation purposes.

And now what they're saying is, okay, we'll allow you to use a little bit more money for the transportation purposes, but you have to hire a driver's service or you have to get a private, you know, company to go ahead and do that.

Well, that now you're right back at square one, you know, because who are you going to trust with your children anyways to drive them 100 miles every day to school?

You know, and you're not seeing them.

So there are plenty of issues that we have with this program.

It's also not serving the, differently able individuals, you know, because these schools can now say we don't want to take them.

We're just going to take the, you know, just the ones who are the most, the least problematic.

We have to serve the least of these, just like all of our public schools do.

Gavin Jackson> And then you talk about the constitutionality of this all.

Do you think that, you know, this is going back to the Supreme Court?

Proponents of this bill, this law, are now saying that it will pass the Supreme Court muster, the constitutional prohibition against sending public dollars to private education.

Do you think that's going to happen?

Do you think we might be back here next year in session, trying to get around the Supreme Court again?

Rep. Jermaine Johnson> You know, only time will tell on this situation.

We have different administration.

We've got, you know, different dynamics, you know, all the way across the United States, right now, different opinions are coming up.

People are changing their minds on certain things.

So I honestly, I don't know.

I don't know where we're going to be at, but all I know is the best predictor of future is, you know, past.

<Yeah> And what we have seen is, has been unconstitutional.

So if they continue on with the same line of reasoning, we'll be right back here next year arguing about the same thing.

Gavin Jackson> Yeah, and it could eventually, at some point go before the voters and change the Constitution that way.

But that remains to be seen.

I'm sure that's a last ditch effort there.

But, talking about other things that you were kind of outspoken for this session was that anti D.E.I.

Bill, the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Bill, that made it out of the House in early April.

It's stuck in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Hasn't gone anywhere over in the Senate.

But this bill use similar language to President Donald Trump's executive orders involving D.E.I.

The bill doesn't actually seem to do too much.

It seems like it's just trying to uphold current anti-discrimination federal laws there, but it prohibits schools and state employees from being forced to take D.E.I.

training.

So what was your message on this legislation on the floor?

Rep. Jermaine Johnson> Well, my question to the voters and to my colleagues was, which part of diversity don't you like?

Which part of equity don't you like?

Which definition don't you like?

Was it inclusion?

Which one was oppressing you, in this situation?

And I spoke about that.

And the main issue that I had is that when it was first introduced, we saw how bad it was for the state of South Carolina.

We saw the report that came out that it was going to cost the state and taxpayers 86 million dollars to implement something that was not a problem.

I mean, was Diversity, Equity, Inclusion a problem when we got Volvo here?

Was it a problem when we got Boeing here?

Was it a problem when we got Scout?

And we invested in Scout Motors?

When did this all of a sudden become a problem for the people of South Carolina?

Now all of a sudden we have a new administration in the White House.

Now all of a sudden there's a problem.

And that was my issue going along with this entire bill was they tried to sneak it through.

It was so bad for everybody.

I mean, it was so bad that, you know, we had, we have domestic violence shelters in the state.

That bill, if it would have, passed the way it was currently written, would have allowed men to go inside those domestic violence shelters.

I mean, it was so bad.

You know, it would have stopped people from doing, DHEC from doing research on prostate cancer or doing things like that.

We had to really take a look at that thing.

And when I shined a lot of light on, the issues and the problems they decided to say, well, let's take a take a different look, and then they rewrote it and then they did another look at it and rewrote it again.

And that has led us to where we have today.

Gavin Jackson> So just kind of, just doing something to do something, even though it's almost making more problems than it's worth it.

Rep. Jermaine Johnson> I mean, that's what we do here in South Carolina.

You know, we have, we have solutions in search of a problem.

You know.

And when we don't have a problem, we want to fix things that aren't necessarily broken because we have been, you know, one of the best economic drivers, you know, in this country is in the South Carolina.

You know, B.M.W.

I mean, all these companies are they're coming here.

They want to come here.

They're spreading their the roots here.

But all of a sudden we have a new administration.

Everything's all of a sudden problem.

Gavin Jackson> So in that vein there, Representative Johnson, a lot of similar arguments you had made on this bill.

This anti D.E.I.

bill was also a lot that we heard when you all were talking about Critical Race Theory.

And that was the big thing, a year or two ago.

Now this D.E.I.

stuff is a big issue.

And again, C.R.T.

was never taught in K through 12 schools in the state.

That was something that really kind of got spun up, I think lost in the conversation.

But what do you think will be the next big issue?

It seems like we're talking about all these things and like you're saying, solutions in search of problems here.

We have a two year session this year.

It's done.

But we're back in 2026, in January.

What do you think is to be the next big social issue you all have to combat?

Well, I love this question because I've answered it, on several other interviews that I've done where, we in South Carolina like to create boogeymen.

I mean, at one point, pregnant women were the boogeyman.

C.R.T.

like you said, was the boogeyman.

D.E.I.

was the boogeyman.

You know, L.G.B.T.Q.

people, they're the boogeyman.

You know, every session we have a different boogeyman.

So, only time will tell what the boogeyman is going to is going to become in the next session that we're going to be coming up.

But there has to be some sort of a boogeyman.

We have some gubernatorial candidates right now that are talking about their boogeyman and saying that they're fighting against certain things and that type of stuff, and if you go online, you can see it right now.

Somebody you know has created their own boogeyman to to get the votes that they're looking for.

And I think we need to really stop looking for boogeyman in South Carolina and start looking out for the people who are suffering the most in this state, you know.

So these social issues, I have no idea which one is going to be, but I won't be surprised when I start to hear about it.

Gavin Jackson> Yeah, you're talking about the 2026 Gubernatorial Race.

We haven't seen anyone declare yet.

But again, everyone's kind of jostling in the background.

I'm sure we'll see some announcements soon.

But, kind of flipping the script a little bit.

Republicans have had a supermajority in the House for a while.

88 Republicans, 36 Democrats.

And it's not all fighting.

You all do actually vote together in some things.

In fact, there's not even that much animosity.

There's actually some collegiality at times.

So when it comes down to these issues, when do you decide to work together?

Maybe.

And what do you decide to fight?

I mean, how do you when does that that dividing line, where's that?

Rep. Jermaine Johnson> Well, the good thing about what we do, in the General Assembly is that most things I'd say about I see a good 95 percent of the issues that come across our desk are bipartisan things.

We come up with, you know, ways to really solve the issues.

And if you've been looking at the L.C.I.

Committee this year with, our new chairman, Bill Herbkersman if you see it, whenever we pass bills, he has all of us come stand up there at the wheel and we stand together as a bipartisan, unit saying, hey, this is good for business in South Carolina.

This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue.

This is just what's good for business.

And people in South Carolina.

The only time we really see us getting at it in fighting is when it's a social issue, something that was, created on Fox News or something that was created on C.N.N.

or something that was created, out there by the White House, you know, that's just came up with something.

So I think that is the main issue that we have is just getting away from some of these social issues.

Now, if I were the leader of the state, you know, I would just I would deal with those issues first.

I would deal with the issues that really affect the most people in this state, and we'll save social issues for the end, because those are the things that affect, you know, .0001 percent of people in this state.

And that's really just a talking point for dinner tables.

And during Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Gavin Jackson> And when we talk about, you know, working together, there's also, internal fighting, not so much on the Democratic side, but more on the Republican side, too, specifically in the House.

We have the far right House Freedom Caucus.

It's about 17 or 18 members, give or take, that really kind of, jostle with the Republican leadership there.

Again, there's 88 Republicans in the House chamber.

But we did see some more, issues this past couple weeks with the House.

Not the House, but actually the Family caucus, which spans both chambers, there, and its leader, Greenwood, Republican Representative John McCravy, who was on the record confirmed by House Majority Leader Davey Hiott for making anti-Semitic and homophobic language.

And he was one of several, Republicans leadership that was targeted by outside groups such as Students For Life, which McCravy refused to denounce.

And so a lot of internal fighting going on over the Republican Party.

I'm assuming you guys can just kind of sit back and watch it.

But did you have any takes after you heard some of these allegations and actually some of these confirmed statements come out?

Rep. Jermaine Johnson> Absolutely.

You know, and it's been extremely frustrating for me because it just goes back to my D.E.I.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion debate and when I was up there talking at the wheel about it.

It was don't support me in private, support me in public.

You know, don't come to me after the situation has been going forward.

Denounce it in public.

Tell everybody that this is wrong.

You are supposed to be a leader of this state, and if you are a leader in the House, I don't care if you Republican or Democrat or Black or White, you do what is right.

You are to stand up for what's right.

And when people come out with these, anti-Semitic, rhetoric or racial rhetoric that they have been known to do, speak up about it.

Make it known that you're not going to tolerate that type of hate and that type of rhetoric in this state.

This is a state that will welcome everybody, that we love, everybody that we will accept, everybody, and we will do things under the rule of law.

And I don't think that, you know, I don't think that the Republican Party is really taking a stance on this.

I think they talk about it in the back room.

I think they talk about it amongst themselves.

I think they talk about it with us.

But I don't think that they get out there and publicly denounce this type of stuff, so the vast majority of the 5.3 million people in the state can see that leaders will stand together on these things.

Gavin Jackson> Yeah, we did see 29 Republicans leave the Family caucus.

<Right> But again, a lot that was on the grounds of these outside groups targeting, not necessarily the rhetoric that we heard coming out from their leader.

We have about three minutes left Representative Johnson.

I want to ask you about just this major shift that we saw happen that affected Democrats and Republicans, that was in the budget dealing with earmarks, money, going back to folks' districts, whether it's for projects, you know, infrastructure or other initiatives with community groups, nonprofit groups.

You spoke out against this multiple times this week to a couple amendments on the budget when it came back to the House before it went back to the Senate.

So what was your issue with that there, too?

It sounds like they were trying to maybe, put this money towards other, other needs in the state, but you sound, it sounded like you had some other opinion.

Rep. Jermaine Johnson> Yeah, I had a lot of other opinions.

So I actually filed a close to 60 Amendments, for the budget.

And the amendments weren't to actually, change anything in the budget.

It was to highlight the programs that they were actually defunding in the state that were actually doing the work.

And I called out my colleagues in there.

I said, listen, if you're the one who's going to do this cancer research, raise your hand and let me know.

If you're the one who's out here serving these young people who are homeless, let me know.

If you're the ones who are out here going to the schools and volunteer and let me know.

But nobody is doing that work.

We have organizations across the state that are that have receiving the state funds to do the work of the people.

I mean, one of the organizations that I highlighted was about sickle cell.

We know lots of people in the state are dealing with the sickle cell trait.

Well, that organization will no longer get the funding.

We have an organization here that deals with, the Children's Trust, you know, with, abuse, neglect for children.

The over 13,000 kids last year were victims of abuse, neglect.

They are now not getting that funding to help solve that issue.

Domestic violence in the state.

They're not getting funding to solve that issue.

And these are things that they're putting on the backburner.

This saying that, the people in leadership are saying they're just not priorities for us.

They're just not important enough for them to continue to get the funding to help solve these issues and eradicate these, these issues in this state.

And that was the problem that I had.

I wanted to shed some light on that to say, hey, listen, this is not pork.

This is not an earmark.

This is community investment.

This is public investment, and this is good for the state of South Carolina.

Gavin Jackson> Yeah.

And that's also on the backs of what we're seeing from the federal level, too with funding issues and constraints for some of these groups.

So, we're going to leave it there.

That's the end of the 2025 session, Representative.

[laughs] We will leave it there.

Thanks for joining us, sir.

<Absolutely> And that's it for us this week.

For South Carolina E.T.V.

I'm Gavin Jackson.

Be well, South Carolina.

♪ ♪