South Carolina

The four cases consolidated into Brown v. Board ofEducation, the landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme Court desegregation decision, included South Carolina’s Briggs v. Elliott. Advocates in South Carolina continue working to realize the dream of Brown: equal educational opportunity.

In 1988, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed a circuit court’s dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state’s public school funding system in Richland County v. Campbell, 364 S.E.2d 470. That case claimed the system was inequitable based on major disparities in per-pupil spending between high- and low-wealth school districts.

Abbeville v. State

Despite this precedent, in 1993, almost half of South Carolina’s 91 school districts sued the State, alleging that the education finance system violated the state and federal constitutions and a state funding statute. The trial court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, but the South Carolina Supreme Court, in Abbeville County School District v. State, 515 S.E.2d 535 (S.C. 1999), distinguished its earlier Richland County decision, upheld plaintiffs’ “adequacy” claim based on the South Carolina education clause, and remanded the case for trial.

The court also held that the education clause “requires the General Assembly to provide the opportunity for each child to receive a minimally adequate education” and defined that education to include providing students adequate and safe facilities in which they have the opportunity to acquire:

  1. the ability to read, write, and speak the English language, and knowledge of mathematics and physical science;
  2.  a fundamental knowledge of economic, social, and political systems, and of history and governmental processes; and
  3. academic and vocational skills.

Abbeville Trial

During a 101-day trial, plaintiff witnesses described difficulties districts and schools face, including:

  • devastating teacher turnover due to low salaries and meager benefits
  • uncertified teachers
  • buildings in shoddy condition
  • lack of equipment
  • overcrowding
  • growing numbers of ELL students
  • students from poverty backgrounds, and
  • graduation rates that vary between 33% and 57.

Plaintiffs, represented by Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, also presented witnesses who testified about educational programs, such as high-quality preschool, quality teaching, and early literacy interventions, which have proven track records of success and would, plaintiffs contend, greatly improve student outcomes – if the districts had adequate funding to provide them.

Defendants argued that students in these poor districts are making the same steady progress as students in other parts of the state and urged the court to reject plaintiffs’ allegations. Counsel for the state defendants argued that although the state has set academic goals for students, those goals exceed what the state is required to fund, which is only a “minimally adequate” education.

Trial Court Decision

In December 2005, the trial court the court found for defendants on plaintiffs’ claims of inadequate teaching quality and inadequate facilities. In the same decision, however,  Judge Thomas W. Cooper, Jr. held that poverty directly causes lower student achievement and that the state constitution imposes an obligation on the state “to create an educational system that overcomes . . . the effects of poverty.”  The court described a “debilitating and destructive cycle” of poverty and poor academic achievement for low-income students “until some outside agency or force interrupts the sequence.”  Based on expert testimony from both plaintiff and defendant witnesses, the court concluded that “it is essential to address the impact of poverty as early as possible in the lives of the children affected by it.”  Therefore, the court ordered “early childhood intervention at the pre-kindergarten level and continuing through at least grade three” to minimize “the impact and the effect of poverty on the educational abilities and achievements” of children from backgrounds of poverty.

The case was appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court in 2008. Both sides sought to overturn the aspects of the decision that held against their positions.  In June, 2012, after almost four years, the court issued an order instructing the parties to re-argue the case in September and invited the parties to submit briefs explaining how legislation passed since 2005, including a series of funding reductions, may have affected the legal issues in the case. Defendants’ Abbeville Brief June 2012 and Plaintiffs’ Abbeville Brief 2012.

State Supreme Court Decision

More than six years after oral argument had been held regarding the lower court’s decision based on a trial that concluded in 2004, on November 12, 2014, South Carolina Supreme Court upheld that part of the trial court’s decision that mandated early childhood education for students from poverty backgrounds; it also substantially modified in plaintiffs’ favor that part of the trial judge’s decision that dismissed plaintiffs’ claims involving “inputs” for K-12 programs such as teacher quality and, inadequate transportation.  Abbeville Co Sch. Dist. v. State of South Carolina.  The decision was written by Chief Justice Toal, who was joined by two other justices; two justices filed a dissenting opinion, arguing that the majority had improperly violated separation of powers precepts.

The Court dealt with the obvious mootness issue by holding that although many of the facts had changed over the past decade, “the Defendants have not substantially changed the baseline funding mechanisms. Thus, we find the Plaintiff Districts may validly argue that the overall funding scheme continues to disadvantage them in the same fundamental way.” Throughout the decision, the Court cited evidence from both the original trial and from the re-argument the Court had convened in 2012 to consider the current state of affairs.

In regard to transportation, the Court cited examples of elementary school children in the small rural districts travelling more than 4 hours per day to and from school in antiquated buses that frequently broke down. Regarding teacher quality, it specifically held that the trial court’s failure to find a relationship between student achievement and the poor quality of teachers in the plaintiff districts, 38% of whom were uncertified or held substandard certifications, to be “largely erroneous.”  The Court also cited output statistics indicating the continued failure of students in the Plaintiff districts to meet state proficiency standards, although the Court also acknowledged that graduation rates had substantially improved.

The Court’s remedy order was innovative. It deferred to the legislature’s policy making prerogatives to develop specific solutions to the problems it had identified, but it discussed in some detail as “particularly instructive” the remedies courts in New York and Wyoming had developed in similar circumstances; in both of these cases, CFE v. State of New York  and Campbell Co Sch. District v. State of Wyoming, the courts had emphasized the importance of cost studies as part of  the remedy. The Court also indicated that the defendants and the small rural plaintiff districts must consider the benefits of consolidation to cut administrative costs. The parties were directed to reappear before the Court “within a reasonable time” to present a plan to address the constitutional violations, and it gave “leave to the parties to suggest to the Court precisely how to proceed…[and to suggest] specific, planned remedial measures.”

In November 2014, the S. Carolina Supreme Court issued a ruling in a long-pending adequacy case that held that the state’s education finance system violated the state constitution. Abbeville v. the State of South Carolina. The parties were directed to reappear before the Court “within a reasonable time” to present a plan to address the constitutional violations, and the Court gave “leave to the parties to suggest to the Court precisely how to proceed…[and to suggest] specific, planned remedial measures.”

Jay Lucas, the newly-elected Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives, has now responded to the court order by establishing a bi-partisan task force composed of legislators, business representatives and educators from the trial and plaintiff districts to devise a solution.

The first meeting of the task force was held on February 23, 2015. At that time, Dick Riley, former U.S. Secretary of Education and former Governor of South Carolina (and a partner in the law firm that represented plaintiffs in the case) addressed the task force and asked its members to “think expansively” and “go beyond minimal adequacy”; he also advised them to “think comprehensively” about long term solutions, and to “think strategically” in a manner that can start a new conversation that can lead to broad public support. Riley spelled out what he meant by “comprehensive” thinking by identifying 13 specific policy areas, ranging from early childhood education and health issues to increasing the rigor of the  middle school curriculum and bolstering art and music  opportunities to updating school facilities.

Michael A. Rebell, Executive Director of the Campaign for Educational Equity at Teachers College, Columbia University, was invited to provide the task force a “national perspective.” He presented an overview of the history and current status of the adequacy cases that have been litigated in 45 of the 50 states, described in detail the remedies that had been developed in New York and Wyoming, the two states that the S. Carolina Supreme Court had mentioned as being “particularly instructive” for consideration in connection with devising a remedy for South Carolina, and presented a number of ideas, based on best practices around the country,  for how South Carolina might create a permanent, stable system that would provide meaningful educational opportunities for all students in a cost effective manner. Two former state superintendents and Derek Black, a law professor at the University of South Carolina, also addressed the task force at this initial meeting.

On September 24, 2015, In response to a motion filed by the plaintiffs, the Court released an interim order  that set up a three-person expert panel to analyze potential solutions for the problems highlighted in the court’s decision and to review and advise the court on the defendants’ plan for ameliorating these problems. The Court ordered that a copy of the defendants’ plan and expert panel analysis be submitted by March 2016. These documents will be used to issue a final decision.

On Nov. 5, 2015, responding to motions from both parties, the Court issued a further order, modifying its September order, that requires the State to file a formal report at the end of the 2016 legislative session to inform the court of its progress on developing a remedy and a timetable for its implementation.

The legislature submitted a joint legislative report to the court on June 29, 2016. In the report, the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate listed several hundred million dollars in increased appropriations the legislature adopted during the session, including a number of categorical programs aimed at high poverty districts and a number of bills aimed at restructuring aspects of the administration of the education system.

Plaintiffs submitted a reply in late July that stated that most of the new appropriations were state-wide increases that benefitted all school districts and from which the plaintiff districts would receive only a small share and that the other reforms constituted scattered items that nowhere compared to 19 pages of specific reforms recommended by the House Task Force. In sum, the plaintiffs argued that the joint report failed to address the root of the problem, the fact that the state’s funding system represents an “irrational patchwork of funding streams,” and it urged the Court to retain jurisdiction and order the legislature to present a plan for remedying the pervasive constitutional violations found in the court order and a timetable for implementing them by the end of the 2017 legislative session.

Private School Tax Credits

In the 2004, 2005, and 2006 legislative sessions, South Carolina governor Mark Sanford championed a state system of tax credits for parents who send their children to private or parochial schools, or home-school them. South Carolinians for Responsible Government, an organization funded mostly by out-of-state supporters, has been the most vocal proponent of these proposals.

The majority of South Carolina’s poor and minority students live in rural areas without private or parochial school options available. They also attend underfunded schools.

The State, Columbia, South Carolina’s daily newspaper

Corridor of Shame, documentary video

Last Updated: September 2016



In November 2014, the S. Carolina Supreme Court held that the state’s education finance system violated the state constitution. Abbeville ...
Read More

S. Carolina House Establishes a Task Force to Respond to Court Order

Last November, the S. Carolina Supreme Court issued a ruling in a long-pending adequacy case that held that the state’s ...
Read More

South Carolina Supreme Court Orders Re-Argument in Long-Pending Funding Case

Almost four years ago, the South Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the cross appeals of the parties in ...
Read More