On June 1, 1999, the South Carolina Supreme Court, rendered a decision in the case of Beaufort County Board of Education v. Lighthouse Charter School Committee, et al., resolving many of the issues surrounding charter schools in our state. The Court's decision makes it clear that a local school board has the authority, under the S.C. Charter Schools Act of 1996 (the "Act"), to require a charter school applicant to comply with the Act's provisions before a charter is approved and, once the local board makes a decision concerning a charter school applicant, the local board's decision must be upheld by the State Department of Education if that decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record.
The Situation
In Lighthouse, a committee comprised primarily of residents of Hilton Head Island organized to form a charter school. The Lighthouse Committee submitted its application to the Beaufort County Board of Education on December 10, 1996. After requesting and receiving additional information, and holding two public hearings, the Board voted to deny the Lighthouse Committee's application for a charter. The Board's decision was issued in writing and included reasons for the denial, as is required by the Act.
Among the reasons given were the incompleteness of the building plans; the failure of the application to include sufficient information to determine compliance with the District's voluntary Desegregation Agreement with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights; the absence of evidence that the proposed project was economically viable; and the failure to provide information to confirm that the proposed school would meet the racial balance provision of the Act, which requires the racial composition of a charter school to be within 10% of the racial composition of the local school district.
Of the several issues between the parties, the most highly contested was the question of the local board's right to review a list of students expected to attend the proposed school. Lighthouse took the position that its assurance that the proposed school's enrollment would comply with the racial balance provisions and the District's Desegregation Agreement was sufficient. The Beaufort Board, however, insisted on receiving at least a list of students who had applied to enroll in the proposed school. In support of its request, the Board explained that it needed more information to determine whether the school, as proposed, would comply with not only the District's voluntary Desegregation Agreement and the Act's racial balance provision, but also whether the proposed school would be economically viable and/or adversely effect students remaining in the District's schools. When Lighthouse refused to provide the list of students, the Beaufort Board voted to deny the application on the basis that the application was incomplete.
The Appeal
Lighthouse appealed the Board's decision to the State Board of Education under the appeal provision of the Act, claiming that the proposed school did not have to show that it met all of the requirements of the Act prior to the approval of the charter. Following a hearing on the matter, the State Board voted to reverse the Beaufort Board's decision. The Beaufort Board then appealed the State Board's decision to the circuit court, arguing that a charter school applicant must show compliance with the provisions of the Act before approval is given. The circuit court reversed the State Board, holding that the Beaufort Board decision was not clearly erroneous in light of the substantial evidence that Lighthouse had not given sufficient assurances of compliance with the Act's provisions.
During the Beaufort Board's appeal of the State Board's decision to the circuit court, the South Carolina Attorney General moved to intervene in the case for the purpose of arguing that the racial balance provision of the Act was unconstitutional. However, the circuit court judge chose not to address that issue, concluding that he could decide the case on other grounds.
Lighthouse then appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court, arguing that its application was adequate and that the circuit court should have given deference to the State Board's decision. The Attorney General also filed an appeal, contending that the circuit court should have decided the constitutionality of the racial balance provision of the Act. In affirming the circuit court's decision, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that the lower court correctly concluded that the Beaufort Board's decision should be upheld because the Beaufort Board's findings were based on substantial evidence. However, the Court remanded the question of the constitutionality of the racial balance provision to the lower court for a decision.
Conclusion
In light of the Supreme Court's decision, local school districts clearly can require charter school applicants to satisfy the requirements of the Act before approving a charter school. Significantly, the Court's holding suggests that local school districts can require that a list of the proposed school's student enrollment be produced for review. With such a list, the local board more easily can determine whether the proposed school will comply with many of the Act's provisions. Local boards, however, should take care to ensure that any decision to deny a charter school application is supported by substantial evidence. It also should be noted that the racial balance provision of the Act is still in effect at this time, and thus should be followed unless and until the lower court rules that it is unconstitutional, or the provision is amended or repealed by the General Assembly.