Could a South Carolina school board promote a student after an appeal despite assessment results below standard?

Plain-English summary

A South Carolina legislative committee chair asked whether a district board could hold an appeal and promote a student whose assessment results failed to meet standards. The 1999 informal opinion did not declare such a promotion allowed or prohibited. It said the Education Accountability Act preserved a district appeal process, but the provisions quoted in the letter did not define the scope of review.

The writer focused on the rule for academic probation after summer school. That rule described retention if school work again fell below grade level or assessment results again failed to meet standards, while also stating that the district’s appeal process remained in effect. The law also assigned district boards the job of establishing review policies. The opinion said neither provision explained whether the appeal could consider other factors, and suggested that the Legislature clarify the question.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. 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 AG say a board could override failing assessment results on appeal? A: No. The letter said the statute did not expressly define the appeal’s scope and did not decide whether other factors could justify promotion.

Q: Did the statute eliminate the district appeal process after academic probation? A: The quoted provision said that the district’s appeal process remained in effect.

Q: Who established district-level review policies under the quoted law? A: Each district board of trustees was to establish policies on district-level reviews, but the AG said the law did not specify the reviews’ breadth.

Q: What solution did the writer suggest?
A: Legislative clarification of what the appeal process could consider.

Background and statutory framework

The request concerned students whose assessment results indicated that academic standards had not been met. The letter quoted parts of §59-18-500 concerning parent conferences, academic plans, summer school, academic probation and district reviews. The writer distinguished the existence of an appeal from its undefined scope. The signed closing, omitted by the PDF text layer, was transcribed from the official page image.

Citations and references

• §59-18-500: Quoted for academic probation and the continuing district appeal process.
• S.C. Code Ann §59-18-10, et seq.: Identified as the Education Accountability Act framework.

Official title

As to whether the Education Accountability Act prohibits boards of trustees from holding an appeals hearing and then promoting a student based upon the information presented at the hearing even though the student’s assessment results indicate that standards have not been met.

Requester

The Honorable Ronald P. Townsend, Chairman, House Education and Public Works Committee

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/february-4-1999/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/99feb4townsend.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M. CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

February 4, 1999

I

The Honorable Ronald P. Townsend
Chairman
House Education and Public Works Committee
Room 420, Blatt Building
Columbia, SC
By Delivery
Dear Chairman Townsend:

•
l

en
r,,

You have requested an informal opinion as to whether the Education Accountability Act prohibits boards of trustees from holding an appeals hearing and then promoting a student based upon the information presented at the hearing even though the student's assessment results indicate that standards have not been met. S.C. Code Ann §59-18-10, et seq. Relevant parts of the law in
§59-18-500 are as follows:
(A)
... at the beginning of each school year, the school must notify the parents of the need for a conference for each student in grades three through eight who lacks the skills to perform at his current grade level based on assessment results, school work or teacher judgment.. ..

i

(C)
At the end of the school year... [i]f the student's work has not been at grade level or the terms of the academic plan have not been met, the student may be retained or he may be required to attend summer school for promotion. If there is a compelling reason why the student should not be required to attend summer school or be retained, the parent of student may appeal to a district review panel. (D) At the end of summer school, ... [i]f the student is not at grade level or the student's assessment results show standards are not met, the student will be placed on academic probation. A conference ... will revise the academic plan .... At the conference it must be stipulated that academic

A~C.~~

•

PosTOmcEBox 11549

•

CoLUMBIA,S.C.29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:303 -734-3970

•

FACSIMILE:803-253-6283

The Honorable Ronald P. Townsend
February 4, 1999
Page2
probation means if either school work is not up to grade level or if assessment results again show standards are not met, the student will be retained. The district's appeal process remains in effect. (emphasis added).

(E)

I
I

Each district board of trustees will establish policies on ... district level reviews ....

The question that you have presented is the extent to which a district appeal under paragraph D may consider factors other than a student's failure to meet assessment standards or failure to perform at grade level. Although paragraph E states that a board will establish policies on district level reviews, neither it nor paragraph D define the scope of the review or provide express guidance as to how broad the review may be. Given the absence of express guidance, I suggest that legislative clarification be obtained as to the extent of the review process so that students, parents and school districts will all know what that process may consider. This letter is an informal opinion. It has been written by the designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents 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.

Yours very truly,

J. Emory Smith, Jr.
Assistant Deputy Attorney General