Support Our Work

As a nonprofit organization, ELC relies on the generous contributions of individuals, corporations and foundations to support our work.

donate now

Join Our Network






“The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public schools open to all children in the State and shall establish, organize and support such other public institutions of learning, as may be desirable.” S.C. Const. art. XI, § 3.

“No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.” S.C. Const. art. XI, § 4.


In 1999, in Abbeville County School District v. State, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that “the South Carolina Constitution's education clause requires the General Assembly to provide the opportunity for each child to receive a minimally adequate education,” and defined the minimally adequate education “to include providing students adequate and safe facilities in which they have the opportunity to acquire:

  • The ability to read, write, and speak the English language, and knowledge of mathematics and physical science;
  • A fundamental knowledge of economic, social, and political systems, and of history and governmental processes; and
  • Academic and vocational skills.”

In 2014, after a trial and on appeal in the Abbeville case, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that “South Carolina's education funding scheme is a fractured formula denying students ... the constitutionally required opportunity” for a minimally adequate education and explained that the resources provided were insufficient. The Court also cited approvingly the needs-based and cost-driven remedies ordered in New York and Wyoming.

Amici in the appeal included the League of Women Voters of South Carolina and the South Carolina Conference of the NAACP, jointly, in a brief arguing for high quality preschool and written by the Education Law Center.

The State claimed legislative actions remedied the constitutional violation, and plaintiffs claimed legislative actions failed even to address the Court’s 2014 ruling. In late 2017, the Court released jurisdiction on separation of powers grounds. The dissent criticized the Court for “becoming complicit actors in the deprivation of a minimally adequate education to South Carolina's students.”