Could a South Carolina school district require more course units for a state high school diploma?

Plain-English summary

In a 1996 informal opinion, an assistant deputy attorney general answered whether a school district could demand more course units than the state requirement for a state high school diploma. He concluded it could not. The amended statute then specified twenty units for the state diploma, as prescribed by the State Board of Education, while separately using the word "minimum" for mathematics and science units. The author treated that wording and the board's prescribed-unit role as showing that districts lacked authority to raise the total units required for the state diploma.

The superintendent had pointed to an older AG opinion reaching the same result under an earlier version of the law. This letter examined the amended language rather than simply relying on the older opinion. It addressed units for a state diploma; it did not analyze every possible local course or program requirement.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. 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: Could a district raise the total units required for the state diploma?
A: The 1996 letter said no. It read the total-unit requirement as set by state law and the State Board of Education.

Q: Why did the opinion focus on the word “minimum”?
A: The statute used that word for math and science units but not for the total units. The author considered the difference evidence that the total was fixed for a state diploma.

Q: Did the earlier AG opinion control the answer by itself?
A: No. The author noted that the statute had been amended and based his conclusion on its then-current wording.

Background and statutory framework

The Richland County School District One superintendent requested guidance about increasing diploma units. The author quoted the amended South Carolina provision governing state high school diplomas and applied a rule of plain statutory reading: clear terms were to be given their literal meaning. He found no district authority to increase the units needed for the state diploma.

This was an informal opinion signed by an assistant deputy attorney general, not a formal opinion personally reviewed by the Attorney General.

Citations and references

• The opinion discussed the amended state high-school-diploma statute and a 1965 AG opinion under earlier statutory language.

Official title

Requesting advice as to whether a school district may increase the number of units required for receipt of a State high school diploma.

Requester

Donald J. Henderson, Ed.D., Superintendent, Richland County School District One

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/december-15-1996-2/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/96dec15henderson.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE A'ITORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CON DON
AITORNEY GENERAL

December 15, 1996
Donald J. Henderson, Ed.D.
Superintendent
Richland County School District One
1616 Richland Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Dear Superintendent Henderson:
You have requested advice as to whether a school district may increase the number of units required for receipt of a State high school diploma . As you note, a previous opinion of this Office which concluded that a district could not increase the units was based upon statutory language that has since been amended and codified as s .c. Code Ann. §59-39-100 (1990) (prev. S21-630, Code of Laws (1962)). Ops. Atty Gen . (March 1, 1965). Section 59-39-100 now reads, in part, as follows:
. .. The units required for a state high school diploma is twenty as prescribed by the State Board of Education •.•• a minimum of 3 units must be earned in mathematics and a minimum of 2 units must be earned in science." (emphasis added). A relevant rule of statutory construction is as follows: The " . .. primary function in inter preting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature." South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation v . Dickinson, 288 s.c. 134, 34 1 S.E. 2d 134 (1986). "Where the terms of a statute are clear and unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation and we must apply them according to their literal meaning." Id. The use of the term "is," the absence of the word "minimum" as used l ater in the statute, and the authority given to the State Board of Education to prescribe the units all indicate a legislati ve intent that school districts have no authority to increase the units required for a State high school diploma.

~:-;~~

:'osT O FFTCEBox 11549

•

COLUMBl,. S.C.292 11- 15'19

•

T ELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

F.KSIMTLf:: S:lJ-'.!53-6'.!83

Donald J. Henderson, Ed.D.
December 15, 1996
Page 2
This letter is an informal opinion. It has been written by the designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and repr esents the opinion of the undersigned attorney 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 further questions, please let me know. Your~-/\T~. -7u1y,

J,--U ~jnith,

Jr.
·:Assistant 'Deputy Attorney General
CC :
JESjr

William F .- Halligan, Esquire