was not entitled to the bonus, having failed to work through the school year. ISSUE The sole issue on appeal is whether District’s retirement incentive plan is consistent with state law? DISCUSSION Wright contends District’s plan is inconsistent with the express and implied terms of state law, i.e., the Proviso. We disagree. S.C.Code Ann. § 59-19-110 (1990) authorizes school districts to “prescribe such rules and regulations not inconsistent with the statute law of this state as they may deem necessary or advisable to the proper disposition of matters brought before them.” There is little case law in this state interpreting precisely when a school district’s rules and regulations are “inconsistent” with state law. See Kizer v. Dorchester County, 287 S.C. 545, 340 S.E.2d 144 (1986) (<HOLDING>). However, in an analogous context, we have
holding interpretation may not be inconsistent with regulation holding school districts had standing to bring claims against the state asserting that school financing system had become unconstitutional recognizing the districts duty of care for the protection of school children in its schools recognizing that school districts may not enter agreements which are inconsistent with state law recognizing application of sovereign immunity to school districts