Panel hears testimony on district 'regulatory sandbox' bill; Pickens County urges pilot flexibility
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
SB 708 would let districts apply for waivers from specified statutes or regulations for up to three years; Pickens County officials and advocates described pilot proposals and urged flexibility, while senators asked about testing and statewide implications.
A legislative subcommittee heard proponents of SB 708, a bill that would allow school districts to apply to the State Department of Education for targeted waivers from certain statutory and regulatory requirements as part of a limited pilot.
The presenter said waivers could be valid for up to three years if districts demonstrate satisfactory performance; districts would submit annual reports to the Department, which would forward them to the council. The application could include alternative scheduling models and other innovations but would not automatically grant waivers — districts must apply and be approved.
Shannon Sharkey, associate superintendent for academics in Pickens County, described the district’s results and pilot plans, saying Pickens visited high-performing systems abroad and domestically and wants flexibility to adopt models such as a 45/15 hybrid schedule, integrated project‑based units, and more frequent formative assessments. "We would like it to not be as time consuming and punitive in the testing piece," Sharkey told the committee, urging a focus on formative measures in K–8 while preserving key summative checks.
Ryan of the Palmetto Promise Institute supported the concept of a regulatory sandbox but asked whether district report cards could be interpreted to apply to all schools within a district’s geographical boundary; he recommended careful drafting to avoid inadvertently imposing district report cards on independently authorized schools.
Amanda Fotis of the Spartanburg Christian Action Network and other parents raised concerns about divergent district calendars and family burdens if neighboring districts choose different schedules. Committee members pressed presenters on whether the bill’s main impact is on testing requirements and whether a broader revision of testing law would be preferable. After discussion, the committee voted to carry the bill over for further consideration and requested additional detail on state‑level implications and testing alternatives.