Skip to Main Content


A Review of the State Department of Education and Issues of Efficiency and Accountability in K-12 Education
May 2004

FOLLOW-UP (PDF)     REPORT (PDF)     SUMMARY (PDF)

The General Assembly asked the Legislative Audit Council to conduct an audit of the State Department of Education (SDE). We reviewed SDE’s operational expenditures to identify cost savings and examined other issues relating to efficiency and accountability of the state’s expenditures for K-12 education. We identified areas where SDE could obtain savings in its operations. SDE also needs to improve its methods for measuring the results of expenditures. We found additional opportunities for increased efficiency and accountability in other areas of the state’s spending for education. Our findings are discussed below.

SDE Operations
The State Department of Education spent nearly $4.1 million for travel in FY 02-03. While we found no evidence of noncompliance with state travel regulations, the department could realize savings in its expenditures for lodging and meals. Unlike other states and the federal government, South Carolina has no limits on the amount of reimbursement for lodging expenditures. SDE often spent more than the federal government’s limits for lodging for its employees and non-state employees (primarily school district employees).

  • SDE furnishes meals and lodging for school district employees who attend training sessions and other meetings in the state. The department spent $677,000 for catered meals for these events in FY 02-03. While state travel regulations limit state employees’ daily reimbursement for instate meals to $25, the department spent as much as $58 a day per person for meals for its events. The department has not emphasized finding the most cost-effective location for events, and guidelines for event planning are weak. Also, SDE could eliminate the provision of meals, particularly for one-day events.
  • The department has not taken advantage of opportunities for postage savings. SDE has used the interagency mail service at a minimal level compared to other agencies whose savings have been substantial. Also, the department has not used the state contract for mailing services to obtain additional savings. Since SDE has averaged $376,000 in postage expenditures annually, its savings could be significant.
  • SDE could obtain savings and improve controls over its cell phones. The department’s decentralized procurement and payment for cell phones is inefficient, increases costs, and does not provide good controls. Also, SDE does not have a policy specifying conditions under which employees are allowed to have an agency-provided cell phone.
  • SDE has opportunities for savings in its expenditures for dues and memberships, which amounted to $379,000 in FY 02-03. The agency could save by not paying for individual memberships, approximately $110,000 in FY 02-03, unless the individual is required by the agency to be a member of an organization.
  • We reviewed SDE’s process for determining salaries for new employees and for awarding raises, and found the department generally complied with state requirements. We did not find evidence to indicate that SDE salaries were inappropriately high, particularly when compared to those of school district employees.
  • We did a limited review of four large SDE contracts and found that the contracts had appropriate management controls and the department attempted to obtain cost savings when negotiating contracts.

Other Efficiency and Accountability Issues

  • South Carolina is spending ever-increasing amounts in salary supplements for teachers who achieve national board certification. By FY 08-09, these supplements could amount to more than $50 million annually. The state does not have adequate controls over funds used for these supplements as the national board does not have appropriate controls over the integrity of the process. Also, there is no body of research demonstrating that national board certified teachers have a greater impact on student achievement than other teachers.
  • We reviewed issues surrounding the mandated state testing program and found that South Carolina students are generally tested more frequently than students in other states. If the state reduced or consolidated some of its assessments and required remediation plans, cost savings and other benefits would likely result. Also, SDE should reevaluate its expenditures for maintaining its benchmark assessments.
  • Both the State Department of Education and the Education Oversight Committee conduct statistical analyses of test items for technical quality, which is a duplication of effort and results in extra costs.
  • SDE has not coordinated with the Education Oversight Committee the selection of its goals for measuring student learning. For many performance measures, the department has not set target dates for the accomplishment of its goals. Also, the educational data that SDE reports to the public each year may not be adequate for determining whether South Carolina is achieving its goals.
  • The State Department of Education’s accreditation function duplicates the work of other entities and should be reduced in scope. SDE’s accreditation process relies on self-reported information, which does not provide a meaningful control. Most S.C. schools are accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, whose standards are similar to those of the state and whose process provides for regular on-site visits.
  • As mandated by the Education Accountability Act, the state spent more than $46 million in FY 02-03 for nine programs that provide intervention and assistance to low-performing schools. We reviewed SDE’s management of these programs and found that the department has not implemented adequate measures that can be used to determine program results. Without valid measures, SDE cannot plan or prioritize funding for the most effective programs. Also, some of the intervention and assistance programs need improved management controls.