Did South Carolina’s Education Oversight Committee have to approve standards for Old and New Testament electives?

Plain-English summary

A senator asked who had to develop and approve academic standards for elective high school courses on the history and literature of the Old and New Testament eras. The AG concluded that the State Board of Education alone was responsible. It treated those electives as outside the core courses for which the Education Oversight Committee had a standards and assessment role.

The opinion read the course authorization together with the education accountability provisions for mathematics, English and language arts, social studies, and science. It also noted a standards review procedure that did not provide Oversight Committee review for certain other noncore subjects.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2007. 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.

Common questions

Q: Did the Education Oversight Committee need to consent to the elective course standards? A: The AG said no. It treated the Testament history and literature courses as electives rather than core courses.

Q: Who set the standards and instructional materials?
A: The opinion said the State Board of Education had that responsibility under the course authorization.

Q: Did the opinion discuss whether a district had to offer these electives? A: The statute quoted in the opinion said a district board could authorize the electives; the request concerned standards if they were offered.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion compared a new elective course provision with existing state standards and assessment statutes. The AG relied on the distinction it drew between core academic areas and other courses.

Citations and references

The opinion quoted S.C. Code Ann. § 59-29-230(A)(1) and S.C. Code Ann. § 59-18-320(D).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-8-2007/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/grooms-l-k-8-8-07-os-8435-elective-course.pdf

Original opinion text

August 8, 2007

The Honorable Larry K. Grooms
Senator, District No. 37
131 Indian Field Drive
Bonneau, South Carolina 29431
Dear Senator Grooms:
In a letter to this office you referenced provisions of newly enacted Act No. 102 of 2007 which provides in a section to be codified as S.C. Code Ann. § 59-29-230(A)(1) that “[a] school district board of trustees may authorize to be taught in the district’s high schools, an elective course concerning the history and literature of the Old Testament era and an elective course concerning the history and literature of the New Testament era.” A provision to be codified as section (C) in that same statute states that “[t]he State Board of Education shall develop and adopt academic standards and appropriate instructional materials that must be used by high schools offering a course pursuant to this section.” You also referenced the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 59-18-320(D) which provide that “[a]ny new standards and assessments required to be developed and adopted by the State Board of Education, through the Department of Education, must be developed and adopted upon the advice and consent of the Education Oversight Committee.” You have questioned whether the State Board of Education alone is responsible for the promulgation of academic standards in compliance with Section 59-29-230(C) for the courses on the Old Testament and the New Testament authorized by Section 59-29-230 or does Section 59-18-320(D) require the Education Oversight Committee to participate in the process. In the opinion of this office, the State Board of Education alone is responsible for the promulgation of standards for the courses authorized by Section 59-29-230 inasmuch as the elective courses dealing with the Old and New Testaments are not core courses of instruction. The distinction between standards for “core courses” and other courses of instruction is noted by S.C. Code Ann. § 59-18-300 which provides that

The Honorable Larry K. Grooms
Page 2
August 8, 2007
The State Board of Education is directed to adopt grade specific performanceoriented educational standards in the core academic areas of mathematics, English/language arts, social studies (history, government, economics and geography), and science for kindergarten through twelfth grade and for grades nine through twelve adopt specific academic standards for benchmark courses in mathematics, English/language arts, social studies and science....(emphasis added). Consistent with such, S.C. Code Ann. § 59-18-310(B) provides for the State Board of Education, through the Department of Education, to develop and adopt statewide assessment programs “in the four academic areas” which appear to reflect the “core academic areas” of mathematics, English/language arts, social studies and science. The distinction between core courses and other courses of instruction is also noted by subsection [C] of Section 59-18-310 which further provides that “[w]hile assessment is called for in the specific areas mentioned above, this should not be construed as lessening the importance of foreign languages, visual and performing arts, health, physical education, and career or occupational programs.” I would note that, according to the document entitled “Standard Operating Procedure for the Cyclical Review of the South Carolina PreK-12 Academic Standards and for the Development of New Academic Standards” prepared by the staffs of the State Department of Education and the State Education Oversight Committee, the schematic outline of the process for the review and revision of preK-12 visual/performing arts, foreign languages, physical education, and health/safety education standards does not provide for review by the Education Oversight Committee. As noted above, Section 59-18-320(D) provides that “[a]ny new standards and assessments required to be developed and adopted by the State Board of Education, through the Department of Education, must be developed and adopted upon the advice and consent of the Education Oversight Committee.” The distinction between core courses and other courses of instruction is also noted by subsection (A) of that same Section 59-18-320 which states that After the first statewide field test of the assessment program in each of the four academic areas, and after the field tests of the end of course assessments of benchmark courses, the Education Oversight Committee, established in Section 59-610, will review the state assessment program and the course assessments for alignment with the state standards, level of difficulty and validity, and for the ability to differentiate levels of achievement, and will make recommendations for needed changes, if any. (emphasis added). Consistent with such distinction between core courses and other courses of instruction, subsection (B) of such provision states that “[a]fter review and approval by the Education Oversight Committee, the standards-based assessment of mathematics, English/language arts, social studies, and science will be administered to all public school students....” A prior opinion of this office dated January 20, 2006 commented that these provisions “...bestow...important responsibilities upon the...(Education Oversight Committee)...in the area of approval of standards required in the core

The Honorable Larry K. Grooms
Page 3
August 8, 2007
courses to be taught in South Carolina’s public schools.” Inasmuch as the courses on the Old and New Testaments authorized by Act No. 102, which are described as “elective” courses, are not considered core courses, the advice and consent of the Education Oversight Committee to the standards and assessment does not appear to be required. If there are any questions, please advise. Sincerely, Henry McMaster Attorney General

By:

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

______
Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General