Could a South Carolina student retake the high school exit exam in the summer after junior year?

Plain-English summary

The State Superintendent asked whether a student who had twice failed portions of the high school exit examination could take it during the summer after junior year. The student had completed the required credits and hoped to enter college that fall. The 1996 opinion said neither the statute nor the related regulation appeared to bar officials from authorizing that additional administration in the described circumstances.

The AG distinguished permission from a requirement. He said the letter did not conclude that officials had to give the exam, either for that student or in other circumstances. He also noted the Superintendent’s regulatory authority to address special situations not covered by the rules.

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: Did the statute prohibit an extra summer retake after junior year? A: The AG said it did not appear to impose a mandatory limit that barred officials from authorizing the test in the described situation.

Q: Did the student have a right to demand the summer exam? A: The opinion expressly declined to say the test was required. It addressed only whether officials were permitted to offer it.

Q: Why did the Superintendent’s regulation matter? A: The opinion said the regulation gave the Superintendent authority to address special situations not covered by the regulations.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion read the 1996 exit-exam statute and the related education regulation in light of an earlier AG opinion. It framed its answer narrowly around permission for this student’s additional exam administration.

Citations and references

Regulation discussed: Reg. 43-259. The opinion also discussed the exit-exam statute as printed in its original text.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/july-19-1996-2/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/96july19nielsen.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina
'
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

July 19, 1996
The Honorable Barbara Stock Nielsen
State Superintendent of Education
State Department of Education
1429 Senate Street
Columbia, SC
29201

I
I

Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Dr. Nielsen:
You have today requested the advice of this Off ice as to whether a student may be permitted to take the exit examination this summer when he has taken it twice and failed portions of it on both occasions. The student has completed his junior year of high school and all of his high school credits. He wants to enroll in college this fall. The exit examination is addressed by s.c. Code Ann. §59-3010( f) (Supp. 1995) and by Reg. 43-259, Code Vol.24. The statute provides in part that "[s)tudents who do not pass the examination in the tenth grade must retake it in the eleventh grade and may take the test twice in the twelfth grade .... " A summer testing program is offered for students who fail to pass the examination after four chances. The law further provides that students are obligated to enroll in a remedial program if they fail to pass the examination.

!

~

r
I

This Office has previously addressed the exit examination. Ops. Atty. Gen. No. 90-38 (May 1, 1990). Although that Opinion considered different issues it does offer guidance here. It recognized a considerable degree of weight to the construction of this law by the State Board of Education. Moreover, unlike other language in that statute which the Opinion noted as being mandatory, the above language does not appear to impose a mandatory limit on the number of times that the examination is offered which would bar the examination from being offered under the above circumstances. In addition, related Reg. 43-259, as noted in that Opinion, gives the Superintendent the authority to address "any special situations not covered by these regulations."

'°6 . . , .

REMBERTC. DENNIS BUILDING

~~

t..L

,,,-.!+/ __,,.

•

POST OFFICE Box I 1549

•

CoLUM!llA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEl'IJONE:

80J-7J4-1<J70

•

P."''""'' · 0 " 0 "n '~ .. ,

The Honorable Barbara Stock Nielsen

July 19, 1996
Page 2
For the above reasons, neither the statute nor the regulation appear to bar the appropriate agencies or officials from authorizing the administration of the examination under the above circumstances; however, this letter should not be interpreted as concluding that the examination is required to be given under these or other circumstances as this letter addresses only whether the law permits this offering of the test.

I

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.

JESjr