Did South Carolina’s 1993 early childhood law require one named curriculum and assessment method?

Plain-English summary

Representative Dan Lee Tripp asked whether South Carolina's 1993 early childhood law required a specific curriculum called “Developmentally Appropriate Practices,” or instead required instruction and assessment appropriate to children's ages. In April 1995, Assistant Deputy Attorney General J. Emory Smit Jr. concluded that the statute did not mandate one named curriculum or assessment method.

The letter read the statute's references to a developmentally appropriate curriculum and assessment together with its words allowing districts to design plans and the State Board to develop or adapt an assessment program. The writer said that wording showed a choice among approaches rather than a command to use the particular program named in the request. He reported that the Department of Education agreed with this interpretation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

School districts and educators

The writer said the 1993 act required developmentally appropriate planning and assessment but did not lock districts into the particular organization's practices mentioned in the request. The opinion did not evaluate whether a specific district's curriculum met the law.

State education officials and parents

The letter described a state role in developing an assessment system and district plans for early childhood initiatives. Its conclusion concerned the absence of a mandated branded curriculum or assessment method, not the removal of the act's age-appropriate aims.

Common questions

Did the act require “Developmentally Appropriate Practices” by name? No. The writer concluded that the statute did not require that particular organization's program.

Did the opinion say schools could ignore developmental appropriateness? No. The letter quoted statutory provisions promoting developmentally appropriate curriculum and assessment; it distinguished that requirement from adoption of one specific method.

Did the opinion approve a particular school's curriculum? No. It interpreted the statutory language and left implementation questions outside the specific answer.

Background and statutory framework

The letter discussed provisions of the 1993 act on its purpose, district plans, and the state assessment system. It relied on ordinary meaning and the legislature's use of open wording such as “options,” “develop,” and “adapt.” The letter was an informal opinion from the signing assistant deputy, without the Attorney General's personal review or formal publication.

Citations and references

• §59-139-05: the early childhood law identified in the request.
• Section 59-139-10: district plans and early childhood initiative provisions quoted.
• section 59-139-60: state assessment provision quoted.
• Hitachi Data Systems Corp. v. Leatherman: case cited for ordinary statutory meaning.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-3-1995-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995apr3tripp.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON

April 3, 1995

ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Honorable Dan Lee Tripp
-Member, House of Representatives
Post Office Box 454
Mauldin, South Carolina 29662
Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Representative Tripp:
You have requested the opinion of this Off ice as to whether the Early Childhood Developmental and Academic Assistance Act of 1993 requires instruction and assessments that are appropriate to the age of the children involved or whether it requires specific curriculum known as "Developmentally Appropriate Practices". S. c. Code Ann. §59-139-05 et seq. (Supp. 1993). This law provides, in part, as follows: Section 59-139-05. It is the purpose of the General Assembly in this chapter: . . . ( 4) to promote the. advancement of developmentally appropriate curriculum and coordinated programs from pre-school through grade 3 . . . Section 59-139-10. (A) The State Board of Education, through the Department of Education and in consultation with the Select Committee, shall develop and implement regulations each school district, in requiring that coordination with its schools, and each school in the district shall design a comprehensive, long-range plan

t:L\IBERT c. DENS!S BL'!LD!NG

•

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLL'MB!A,

s.c. 2921:., i549

•

TELEPHONE'.

803-734-3970

•

FACS!MJLE: 803-253-6283

The Honorable Dan Lee Tripp

• 2 -

April 3, 1995

with annual updates to carry out the purposes of this chapter. To that end the plans shall: (1) establish an early childhood initiative (C) The design for the early development initiative must include: .

child

(2)
the
development
and
implementation
of
~
developmentally
appropriate
curriculum
from
early
childhood education through grade 3. Options available to districts and schools in designing the early childhood assistance component include . . . (Emphasis added.) section 59-139-60. The State Board of Education, through the State Department of Education and in consultation with the Select Committee, shall establish an assessment system to evaluate the degree t o which the purposes of this chapter are met. To that end, the State Board of Education, through the Department of Education shall: (1) develop or adapt a developmentally appropriate assessment program to be administered to all public school students by the end of grade three . (Emphasis added.) The following rule of statutory construction applies here: In construing statutes, we seek to effectuate legislative intent. The cardinal rule of statutory construction is that words used therein must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without result to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand its operation. Hitachi Data Systems Corp. v. Leatherman, 309 s.c. 174, 420 S.E.2d 843, 846 (1992). In addition, ordinary rules of grammar are applicable. Busching v. Superior Court of Ventura County, 115 Cal. Repr. 241, 524 P.2d 369, 374 (1974); Ops. Atty. Gen. (May 22, 1984) . Here, the use of the articles "a" and "an" and the words, "options", "develop" and "adapt," as well as other language in the statute, clearly indicates a legislative intent not to mandate a certain type of curriculum or assessment such as a particular organization• s "Developmentally Appropriate Practices". My understanding from the Department of Education is that' the Department agrees that this language does not mandate the "Developmentally Appropriate Practices." The draft "South Carolina English Language Art Framework" adopted by the State Board of Education defines "Developmentally Appropriate", in part, as being

The Honorable Dan Lee Tripp
"appropriate for children
development." Appendix A.

April 3, 1995

• 3 -

of

a

particular

age

or

stage

of

You may want to contact the Department of Education for further information; however, the conclusion of this Office is that the above legislation does not mandate a particular curriculum or assessment method. This letter is an informal Opinion. It has been written by a designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney only as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally reviewed by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. If you have any questions, please let me know.

J. Emory Smit
Jr.
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
JESjr./fg