Is 50th good enough? What about 40th?

We could start with dismissing the taxpayer-subsidized lawsuit by school districts. That might free up a few bucks. Seriously though…I will readily admit I do not know what the answer is, and will look forward to reading SDWC folks’ ideas.

We may rank low in per student spending, but we continue to turn out students who do very well.

Why change a system that isn’t broken?

Annon 3:21

We crank out some students who do very well, but that’s frequently from larger school districts, while students in smaller rural schools are struggling to get by on almost nothing.

The system is most definitely broken.

I am not happy having my children being educated by the lowest bid nor would I ride on a space shuttle trusted to the lowest bid.

So if the system isn’t broken, we have the best teachers in the nation in every classroom and school? And those classrooms have the best (not just enough to get by).

Or better yet I never heard the governor or his staff ask the question- “Could we do better”. We are happy just getting by.

The bottom line is that until we get past class warfare we will not compensate educators fairly.

We are NOT 50th in total ’state’ contributions. We’re 50th in a ranking system that looks at total (state & federal) education spending vis a vis total spending on everything (medicare & medicaid, highways, prisons) from all funding sources.

For example, any state with a relatively small budget and many miles of roads to maintain automatically reflects a low PERCENTAGE of money spent on education. Throw in the medicare and medicaid spending in a rural state with an aging population, and the numbers are skewed further.

35% of every STATE dollar is appropriated to the Dept of Ed. More than 15% of every STATE dollar goes to the Regents. Those numbers don’t tell the story SDEA wants though, so they talk about the percent of the TOTAL budget that goes to education. That gets them down to under 17%, and that’s the number they publicize. And the state has virtually nothing to do with directing the federal dollars that come in. The state cannot put federal highway dollars into education. The state cannot put medicaid dollars into education.

50th? Depends on who you listen to and what story they’re telling. Just remember, some educators MUCH prefer fiction.

Angie Buhl has just put ignorance on display. She tries to tie spending to achievement. She says that students who do well come from large schools. Then she draws a completely erroneous conclusion that if a student is educated in a small school with fewer resources, they are doomed.

Angie, check your facts. You will note that high-achieving students come from all across the state & from schools with different budgetary situations.

Speaking of struggling to get by on almost nothing, your lack of intelligence and inability to reason doesn’t keep you from posting.

There are two reasons that we need to change the system –
1) We are facing a huge teacher crunch in the next few years. Younger teachers are leaving the state in droves. What are we going to do when the Baby Boomers retire over the next 3-10 years and we don’t have replacements?

2) Yes, we do ok with respect to the rest of the country. Our ACT scores are 18th in the nation. Our SAT scores are quite high at 4th or 5th in the country…but only 4% of college bound seniors take this test – so we can’t rely on this. But I ask you: So What? We shouldn’t be rating ourselves against the rest of the country…we need to compare ourselves with the rest of the world. And when we hold ourselves against them – we are sorely lacking. Per the latest released OECD study (they are the folks who compare Math/Science rankings amongst in the world), the United States ranks 21st in High School Graduation, 14th in college graduation, 21st in Science and 22nd in Mathematics. The rest of the world is passing the country by. Now we can wait for Washington to take notice of this and attempt to fix the problem…which of course will happen right around the 12th of never, OR we start making real investments in education now.

Anonymous,

You could have easily cited your own facts rather than be offensively insulting to others.

That you failed to provide facts in your post, makes your post pretty dumb.

I think we’re unnecessarily focusing on duplicating services across the state, district by district.

With the networking capability available for video conferencing and distance learning, there’s no reason that South Dakota can’t have a teacher in one school conduct a class with multiple schools. The teachers at the remote sites can have class material they can use to work with the students for “hands on” work.

Obviously, this method isn’t appropriate for ALL teaching, but it’s certainly an option and similar to what college classes have been doing for years, where a professor presents the material and grad students work with smaller groups for labs, discussings, monitoring exeams, etc.

what’s wrong with 40th? we’re near last in just about every economic category, simply because of our size, or lack thereof.

i’m not saying we can’t do better, but it seems that the 41st through 50th states are the ones who ought to be concerned.

Patti, read Angie Buhl’s post. She didn’t cite any facts. All I did was respond to her stupidity. Now I’m responding to yours. You’re birds of a feather, and I’m a mighty hunter.

Annon 4:28-

If you can point out to me where I said that all students in all small schools are doomed, that’d be great. You appear to have read someone else’s post by mistake.

I wasn’t saying that there aren’t *any* high acheiving students in small, under-funded rural schools, nor was I saying that *all* students in large, fully-funded high schools do well. Clearly, neither is the case. Rather, I said that high acheiving students *frequently* come from schools where there are more resources available to them.

There are some large high schools that literally can’t spend their money fast enough (like Yankton High School, which re-built the *ancient* (five-year-old) teacher parking lot in 2003 simply because they needed to spend the money to keep from getting budget cuts the next year), while there are some small schools that barely have a school library.

Granted, this is anecdotal evidence, but I also think they are symptomatic of a larger problem. There are some schools which have more than enough money, and some schools which are struggling to survive. It’s not rocket science.

To answer PP’s question about peoples’ real ideas for solving this (as opposed to devolving into name-calling), I think the answer lies not only in finding additional revenue sources, but finding better methods to appropriate funds. There is absolutely no reason that some schools should be trying to get by with bare bones, when other schools are needlessly burning through their funds.

Annon, do you have any constructive ideas, or just more names to call me while you hide behind annonymonity?

hey Anonymous,

thank you for responding to angie’s post, before i take sides, i want to point out that you are a Forum troll. Don’t know what that is? look it up, no one likes them. you turned an issue that COULD have been discussed critically in an adult manner, into a childish crap flinging fest.

If you disagree, disagree, but dont call people who disagree with you ignorant, and lacking an inability for anything, she has the ability to voice her opinion like an adult, something you failed at.

also? way to bash some one as Anonymous, take real guts. Get out of here troll.

Thank you Jeffrey S., I think if people can’t post with the names their parents gave them they don’t deserve the freedoms that our relatives fought so hard to give us.

There are several ways to raise funds for education but our state hasn’t stuck its head out and done them. The funding could come from: a bed and booze tax, a raise in property taxes, and/or having our interstates toll roads.

With a bed and booze tax you would basically be taxing life’s luxuries such as: fast food, restaurants, hotels, airfare, cell phones, cigerates, booze and/or etc. This could be done during the tourism season or year around, because if we have enough money for these luxury’s why not a couple more cents to help educate or children. The option of property taxes wouldn’t make many people happy, nor do I personally endorse it but it is an option that should be considered, sense property as a luxury not a right. Having a toll put on our interstates would help raise revenue just like a movie theater raises money by charging an admission. Several states do this and raise money for highway improvements and fund other things.

So let’s stop the name calling and discuss the bi-partisan issue at hand.

I blame PP for all the forum trolls.

But Anon 4:22 posted truth, and everybody is ignoring it. I wonder why?

Yes it is the truth, with out the sources or a real name, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to pay our educators better for a job well done. It certianly doesn’t mean we shouldn’t want a better education for South Dakota’s youth.

Look at the numbers: our local districts manage to scrounge up per-student revenue that almost equals the national average, while the state drags its feet and contributes $2000 less per student than the national average. Either our local districts are all egregious wasters of tax dollars, or Pierre needs a kick in the pants.

But read first, kick later: Full US Census report in PDF format here.

What’s with all the name calling!! Here’s some facts on spending for education in SD.

Actually, we are 38th not 40th in total per pupil spending according to the 2007 REPORT CARD ON AMERICAN EDUCATION, with spending at $8077 for each student. This is put out by the American Legislative Exchange Council, February 2008.

SD is 12th in pupil/teacher ratio at 13.4 pupils per teacher.

The average salary of INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF is $35,336 and ranks us 45th. As a comparison, the average salary for workers with at least a Bachelor’s Degree is $34,788.

Teacher Salary compared to Salary for Bachelor Degrees is 101.81% which puts SD at 14th place in the nation. How many months of work does each group work in a year?

SD teachers do very well when all things are considered. The source for these computations come from the US Dept. of Educ., National Center for Educ. Statistics and others.

PP asked for ideas to enhance education funding and so far only one person, Joseph Bryant, has actually offered ideas. Everybody else just wants to argue.

I think that a lot of school districts are top heavy, meaning too many higher paid administrators. I believe that the smaller school districts are going to need to combine administration. Imagine 5 small school districts combining administration with one principal and one superintendent. Eliminate 4 principal and 4 superintendent salaries and you would have a decent amount with which to fund teacher raises.

You never here the cry “Raise administrators’ salaries, raise counselors’ salaries.” I wonder why? something to think about

Jarred Johnson ought to chime in here. Doesn’t his office have to do with funding education?

Tsk Tsk is right that small schools could combine some administrative positions and maybe save some money. Combining superintendents may work, but principals may not. You need to have somebody in charge of each school, somebody to lead and command.

Since we are talking about cutting administrative positions, and maybe some of the assistant positions, consider this. One of the reasons, a big reason, for having so many administrative staff is to abide by all the Federal and State regulations and all the record keeping required. How about letting the schools control their own affairs?

Have the state put out a report card every year on how the students are performing, maybe on both testing and in college performance. This way the citizens of any district would now how their school is functioning and if their school board is on top of things. But cut all the red tape!

Bruce, I don’t believe that School and Public Lands, can force the legislators to decide how much of the budget goes to what. They can make a suggestion but unless your a legislator or the Governor, you really can only make a suggestion.

Money doesn’t equate to smarter kids or better teachers. Three words: Todd County Falcons.

$14,000 ADM to accomodate their high drop out rate and test scores in the toilet.

In conjunction with Tsk Tsk’s response; one of the reasons I think that greater use of remote learning networks worth considering is that it can reduce many of the duplicative administrative positions. This can allow the state to focus more of it’s education funding to education, instead of administration.

It’s possible that districts could consolidate administratively but keep their classrooms close to home.

Bruce,

Yes you are right Jarrods office does enhance education. Off the top of my head i can not give you the figures but Jarrod has really BROUGHT IN THE BACON for the state! It would not be fair to go after Jarrod! I suggest going to the state website and check the facts. If i still had my email from the state I would toss out htose figures for you and the rest of the poster. Of course i am basing my information on the email I received.

Here’s a stab:
1) Locals spend some of their 32 mil
2) Consolidate administrators (county)
3) Deadwood
4) VL
5) Tribal gaming expansions & take percentage of revenue
6) Forced retirements and free up cash
7) Internet sales tax
Aggressive consolidation
9) state government 7 percent cut excluding Social Services, Health, Human Services & Ed. Indiana did it and that guy was OMB budget director it must work
and
10) sale leaseback on the gov’s new mansion.

Some of the Andministrators teach as well as some principals. Maybe only one class but they do teach. Yes districts could combine Supers, the schools will complain of course. The voters would have to make sure they are voting in GOOD and qualified School Board Members! I have had this conversation with a few smaller district school supers. This is not a new idea by any means. The cost of running the buildings is the biggest factor. Please remeber that teacher benefits seem to be left out of the facts presented.

Tsk has a pretty good grasp on things, but is missing a couple of points.

(Disclosure: Yes, I’m married to an administrator, but…) If you have good teachers, you generally have them in place because they were hired by, vetted and retained by good administrators.

Many rose from the ranks of being teachers (including Mrs. PP) because they had the opportunity for further professional growth towards administration.

As anyone knows, it’s like taking on a bear to get rid of bad teachers. You’re often fighting the teacher’s union, etcetera. So it’s no easy task. (And before you say it, there are bad teachers, just as there are bad legislators, bad doctors, etc.) But if bad employees are weeded out, it’s because you had administrators doing the weeding.

As far as consolidation & distance learning, consider your administrators as CEO’s and CFO’s. What would happen if you took a well functioning company that had been in business for a number of years, and unexpectedly doubled or tripled it in size, and added several remote locations that were formerly run by others?

I think you’d have chaos. That’s why many sweeping consolidation proposals are problematic. Aside from the fact the towns left with no schools are hastened into ghost town status. (Anon 10:19 – if you’d care to provide your real name, and a list of the schools you’re going to close through “aggressive consolidation,” I’m sure they’d LOVE to hear your dissertation on the topic in those towns.)

If the state is going to maintain a lesser stake in funding schools in comparison to our neighbors, then we need to promote more local control.

I’m one of those who don’t believe that the state should have such authority to tell towns that their schools should be shut down – THAT should be a local decision. I’m not one of those who believe the state (and federal government) should place mandates, some unfunded, on schools.

And I believe the people who live in towns, fund the schools, and have their kids in those classrooms are the best stewards on how the school should be run – not the state.

It might not put me in lock step with the administration, but that’s my opinion, and I’m entitled to it.

My comment that Johnson ought to chime in wasn’t a bash against him. He is a friend and I voted for him. I thought he could bring his knowledge to this discussion. Let’s give him that respect.

And, if highly compensated teachers were the answer then explain the reason why some Pine Ridge Agency schools are at the bottom of the heap.

Angie at 3:55, you obviously know nothing about school funding or actual test scores. With your obvious bias perhaps you belong in the legislature from Minnehaha or Pennington county. Average spending per pupil in small rural schools is generally greater due to the “small school factor”, the sparcity factor, and more frequent opt outs. When you compare actual standardized test scores, the top 20 or so are always small to medium schools. The big schools are interspersed just like the smaller ones. Size has little impact on test scores in SD.

Angie at 5:59. Sorry, but I have to pick on you again. You are promoting untrue theories on school funding that are apparently shared and believed by others.There are no such things are “underfunded small schools” or “fully funded large schools’. The beauty of the SD funding formula is that every student accounts for the same amount of money, no matter what district. First you compute your local effort through propery taxes, then the state makes up the difference through state aid to public education. There is a specific set $ amount every year that each student gets. In addition, small schools get a little extra per kid, called the small school factor. There are also discrepensies in “other funds” income between school districts from such things as fines and bank franchise tax, but these are generally not too great. The big difference is the extra federal money that some schools get, particularly reservation schools with high Indian populations, such as Todd County and Pine Ridge. As noted above, even though these schools have more money and better paid teachers, it doesn’t equate to better students.

You want ideas to get more money in the state for education. I will reiterate, again, PUT A NICKEL OR DIME TAX on cans/bottles of pop/soda. This money collected would go straight into a separate fund to earn interest and be doled out on a per student basis to all school districts across the state on a twice yearly basis. There would be no red tape, no huge administrative costs, no criteria other than simply per student. It would be simply money in and money out on a per student basis.

This is a sin tax that I would pay cuz I do love by Mt Dew!

Other states do charge this tax and then refund it back to encourage recycling. It is possible, and it must not be a huge burden to do. Why doesn’t someone pick up on this idea?

This money would be directed entirely to education on a per student basis, doled out twice per year. It could be used to increase teacher salaries in the form of bonuses, if some complain that the amount is not
dependably the same every time. It could be used to fund laptops, although I think this as currently done is very cost ineffective and is of questionable value. These funds should not be tapped for new building, extracurriculars, etc but should only be used to improve academics in the school districts.

I also think the state could implement a bed and booze tax to capture a little extra money from tourists to this state. We pay huge such taxes when we travel to various states; we might copmlain, but it doesn’t keep us from visiting those states or using their hotels or restaurants. It’s just a small extra cost to us to vacation there. Same thing should be applied here.

Please, I would like some comments as to why these would or would not work.

Forgot two points. Combining administrative staff is a good idea. The way we pay our supt’s makes it seem like they are much more important than any teacher in the schools, and I don’t buy that. Pay them a good salary, sure, but three figure salaries! No way.

All one of the posters above had it right. Teachers don’t make a whole lot in SD, but neither does anyone else when compared nationwide. Comparing SD to NY or CA is ridiculous without also comparing cost of living, housing, all taxes, etc etc. Not to mention that SD is a much nicer place to live than either NY or CA!

why this discussion when the numbers show that we’re doing fine? i would say that 40th (or 38th, according to 8:19) is pretty good for a state that ranks near 50th in just about every other economic category.

if there’s a problem, it’s not with teacher salaries, it’s with rising health insurance costs. many teachers aren’t making more than they were 10 years ago because the increased funding is going toward paying for their health insurance.

What bothers me about the entire funding of education issue is the reluctance that any increased funding come from increased property taxes. It seems that the focus on the “good” (more money for education) is always focused on having the state or federal government provide the funds.

As a resident of one of the fastest growing and “kid concentrated” districts of the state (Harrisburg), one who sends his kids to parochial school, lives in a better than average home, my property taxes relative to the rest of the state are higher than most. And, because I’m overall pleased with what is going on in my public school and concerned with the education of my neighborhood kids, I’m predisposed to accept having my taxes raised.

But with this disposition, I expect the school to speak to the public on the need and the uses for higher funding. Generally, the debate in the area has been open, vociferous and sometimes contentious but after the debate the school has gotten the support it needs from the taxpayer.

In short, if the school is doing a good job, needs more money, and effectively and openly speaks to the public, I believe they can garner additional funding from the property taxpayers. After all the debate here in the Harrisburg district, I believe that there is a new consensus and understanding of our unique needs. This is good.

Let me give you an anecdote. Last year when Harrisburg had its last vote, my wife and I were walking through our neighborhood and came across a fellow Sioux Falls Catholic School family. They asked how we were voting on the bond issue. I was expecting to have to explain why I was voting to have my taxes raised when my kids don’t attend the public school. I was surprised that they too were prepared to lobby me to support it as they assumed I’d be opposed.

Government closest to the people governs best and this should apply to education as well. I’m naturally suspect of any “cause” that is worthy but the advocates are unwilling to press those directly impacted to pay for it.

The most important statistic is how our kids perform. SD has consistently been in the top ten in terms of test scores. I would say we are the model for any other state that spends more and gets a lesser return on investment. Could your local school use an extra $1,000 per student? Could you use an extra $20,000 in your budget? YOU BET!
What’s important right now is the policies and spending we are debating right now and how they will shape our kids. I believe we will be dealing with a teacher crisis within the next 5-10 years and the will be a clear demonstrable need for the market to react. (OMG, did this guy just say education should operate like a business?)
Yes, he did!
Our number one problem right now is declining enrollment. That is projected to level off and even come up. Small rural towns will live or die regardless of whether their school are in operation or not. It may delay the inevitable, but it won’t stop it. The key to education funding is economic opportunities not increased taxes. We have so many obstacles facing us, the last thing we need is another reason for a business not to locate or expand in SD. We can only raise taxes by growing our economy, not raising the rates.

Just a quick response to Kats BBB tax. If you could taylor the law to say only out of state people pay it, then you might have a case. The fact is most of these taxes are paid by our own citizens. How many times do you go out to eat/drink or take your kids to sports tournaments or vacation that requires an overnight stay? And just because other states tax its guests into oblivion doesn’t make it right or that we should.

Here’s the problem we face. We may be 41st in spending (40th if you exclude Washington D.C.), but we’re far behind other rural states.

Here’s an idea that is long past due.

Right now, statue limits increases in education spending to 3 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. The legislature can add more – and they usually do, after every other government program is funded.

Over time, that has led to growth in state goverment at twice the rate that has been allowed for K-12 schools.

Let’s start with a simple policy change. That K-12 state aid will increase at the same rate as the rest of state goverment.

If we would have done that 10 years ago, we wouldn’t be in the hole we are in today.

Unfotunately, we’re past the point where a small change can prevent larger investments.

Once we fix the problem with annual increases in aid, we can work on a plan to play catch up.

Brian, here is why I disagree with your idea: It begins with the premise that the obligation for increased education funding is the responsibility of the State. I believe it is the local property taxpayer. The State’s primary obligation is to those items under its exclusive control. The primary obligation of the school district is that which is under its exclusive control.

Another reason that I disagree with it is there is no linkage between the needs of State obligations and education. Increased needs for roads is irrelevant to what we need for K-12 education. The three areas of State government that have grown faster than K-12 funding is transportation (funded by gas tax), higher education, and medicaid/social assistance (federal mandated and partially funded). To start linking expenditures by percentage negates the need for a legislature and adjusting to changing needs and priorities.

And, the restriction on local taxes at inflation doesn’t preclude an “opt-out”. I love the concept of an “opt-out” as it forces school leaders to speak to the public about their needs. If they make a good case, I believe the voter will support it. If they can’t justify it to those directly impacted, what does it say about its merits?

Anonymous 10:24

I disagree with your limits on the Bed and Booze tax. The reason is why shouldn’t the citizens of this great state be taxed based on lives luxery’s? I agree with a Bed and Booze tax if it is implimented only during the tourism season. I stand by my name and my word, because I see this is doing a lot of good in each level of government thourghout the state no matter what the the need of funnding. I think its the responsibility of the state to make sure its children are educated. The quility of education should be determined by the citizens.

Troy:

With respect, I’ll disagree with you on a few points.

First, you have to recognize that the state now sets a bar that all school districts must meet in order to be considered a successful school. The state has adopted a minimum set of standards, and students are expected to meet performance benchmarks. If goals aren’t met, it triggers varying levels of additional state regulation that can eventually end up with the state taking conrol of local school districts.

If the state pushes that responsibility on to locals, then the state has a duty to provide sufficient funding to see those goals can be met.

As a concept, opt-outs can be a part of our state school finance policy. But they should be used exactly how they were intended – an additional self-imposed tax to provide education services above-and-beyond minimum state standards.

The problem is, opt-outs are not being used to provide basic programs. They’re being used as a way to maintain basic operations. And, before anyone says that opt-outs are a small school issue, take a look at the number of large districts that have currently opted out.

Another problem with your opt-out method is that there are varying levels of property wealth throughout the state. Some districts can realisitically pass opt-outs, but in some cases, the additional per-capital tax is simply too great for anyone to accept.

In our current school finance system, those land-poor districts are made whole by the state. Other areas with high value – like Lead-Deadwood or Hill City – don’t receive any state funds.

One last point, Troy.

Our current K-12 finance formula is not based on need at all. It’s based on what the state has available to spend.

If it were tied to what the K-12 system actually needed, then there’d be no debate at all. Unfotunately, most lawmakers won’t acknowledge the needs of our system.

Here’s my shot:

1) Take an extra 2% from the $900 million in reserves every year for a fixed period of time. For ten year, it’ll be about $18 million.

2) Give it directly to the districts the same way we do now.

3) Give the districts the power with one caviat: if they plan to save it that they have to manage it the same way a private foundation does, where they have to distribute a certain percentage every year without any penalty.

Thanks for a great subject PP.

Brian, “If the state pushes (minimun standards) responsibility on to locals, then the state has a duty to provide sufficient funding to see those goals can be met.” I agree and this is my expectation for what they receive in State Aid.

Rationale for Opt-Out to exceed minimum standards: If that is the only “use”, I believe it should be expanded to be used for meeting or exceeding standards as the school and taxpayers agree. This being said I need to see an example where the current levels of local taxation and State Aid don’t allow for the minimum standards to be met. Failure to meet them may be reflection of management and not a lack of funds.

“Our current K-12 finance formula is not based on need at all. It’s based on what the state has available to spend.” “Need” is subjective. Considering the fact that State Aid per student has grown faster than inflation throughout my lifetime, this is one pro-education taxpayer who is hesitant to re-adjust “need” just because we want to do so to prove we are “pro-education” or “pro-teacher.”

Isn’t this just more of the insanity that Obama keeps harping on? We have a system of education that was relevant years ago (graduated age based learning, relying almost exclusively on “education degreed teachers, tenure, no effective competition, no incentive pay and no performance evaluation which results in either work improvement plans or termination).

Any business that doesn’t adjust to changing environment goes the way of the buggy manufacturers. Talk to any business manager and they talk about their biggest challenge is reaching, teaching, motivating, retaining the Generation Xers (born 1960-1979). They are starting to talk about the Generation Yers (born 1980-1993) and their unique issues.

Well, educators are dealing with Generation Zers (born 1993-present) who have lived 100% of their lives in the digital age. And, as far as I can see, the education model is nearly identical to that which I was educated in.

Two facts are indisputable: We are spending more money on K-12 education than ever before (inflation/cost adjusted) and performance is deteriorating.

This pro-education taxpayer (mother was a school teacher) is not interested in just throwing more money at the system without some concrete evidence of a reinventing of the model. This requires evidence that all parties (teachers, administrators, community/business, and students) accept that there are no “sacred cows”.

With regard to No Child Left Behind, I have no opinion on whether it is a lasting solution or not. My suspicion is that it is not but only an interim stimulus for change.

Despite its alleged short-comings, it is hard to deny that it has spurred the most significant evaluation of education in my lifetime. If it opens the door for new solutions, new paradigms, and new approaches, it will be deemed priceless as we prepare our next generation to accept the mantle of running America.

Troy, you are speaking as a homeowner who doesn’t mind getting his raised. Fair enough. The problem lies with the increased taxes that businesses and farmers/ranchers end up paying with any opt out. These two groups are already paying the majority of property taxes going to the schools. And any opt out involves huge additional taxes on those already paying the lion’s share of taxes.

It’s not fair of you to assume that because a person already paying huge taxes for education doesn’t want to pay any more taxes that he/she is against education. That’s just baloney. There just needs to be other ways for aid to education than socking it to the same property owners time after time.

Still no comments on my tax on pop. I really want to hear why people think this is a good idea or a bad one.

And I still say a bed and booze tax would be fine. Motels would have a higher tax than restaurants. Most people don’t stay in motels often enough that it would be a big deal to have a higher tax on that, and even if we do, the tax wouldn’t preclude us from choosing to stay in a motel anyway. But add up all the tourists and all the extra motel taxes throughout the entire year, and the state could see some serious money flow in.

Since education is the item most often and loudest to be declared in need, dedicate all that money to education. Put it in a single account, and dole out once or twice a year simply on a per student basis. Keep it out of the ridiculous formula or the sparsity factor or anything else. Just in and out and make the districts use it for academics, teacher only salaries (not administrative or counselors or coaches though), anything dealing with actual education and not buildings or extracurriculars.

I think the problem with these two answers is that they are too simple and too straight forward. Politicians like to make everything complicated and an elaborate issue.

Kats, I understand where you are coming from even in disagreement.

A couple of comments:

Yes I am a homeowner. But I’m also a business owner and as a percentage of relatives in agriculture, I’m in the upper percentile (at least of city folk).

100% of property taxes are paid by people who have an investment in the school district.

If additional educational funding is warranted, I keep asking myself “Why is it necessary to tax outside the district?” If the locals are unwilling to pay for it, why should someone else?

“It’s not fair of you to assume that because a person already paying huge taxes for education doesn’t want to pay any more taxes that he/she is against education.” I agree. And, I am pro-education but doesn’t mean I’m willing to give education a blank check. I’m also pro-eating, pro-shelter, and pro-social justice. Education has to compete for scarce resources as does other demands. Again, if the locals won’t pay more taxes for more better education, why should someone else?

“There just needs to be other ways for aid to education than socking it to the same property owners time after time.” There is some truth to this if you look at it as an isolated revenue source and expenditure use.

But I look at spending and taxes globally. Income taxes fund the brunt of federal government, sales taxes fund the brunt of state government, and property taxes fund the brunt of local governments.

Reality is that some have wealth in property but little income, some have income but little wealth, and some spend a small percentage of their spending on sales taxable items. However, when looked at globally, the three legged stool of multiple sources for government results in distributed taxation that is hard to avoid.

Kats: I love how you take all the glory for the idea I liad out frist.

How about we NOT waste valuable education dollars on things such as laptops for every child? I understand the importance for technology literacy and typing skills etc., but having a computer for every child does not make kids smarter. It does not improve their grades. Computer labs can be shared and made available for kids and be used to expand their technology literacy skills as a part of classes. Giving them each their own laptop to bring home or even to keep them in the school does nothing to better math, science, English, or economic skills. Students will just use them to download illegal music and check Facebook and MySpace…none of which contribute to bettering their education.

Katz, I’ll answer your pop tax idea.

Per capita consumption of pop is approximately 500 cans of pop per year. South Dakota has approximately 792,000 people. Pop consumption per year in South Dakota is approximately 388 million cans. A 5 cent tax (assuming the tax doesn’t decrease consumption which basic economics asserts it will. One would have to understand the price elasticity of consumption to know the impact) would raise $19 million.

Now, my thoughts on the merit. I generally oppose dedicated revenue sources for general obligations of government unless it is obstensibly a user tax (ie gas tax for roads) because increases or decreases in the revenue are not related to the spending needs of the targeted user. If pop consumption dropped, does that mean that education needs are less? If pop consumption increased should the additional revenues be used elsewhere (i.e. juvenile diabetes?).

In short, it is my belief that legislators should design and levy taxes from multiple sources sufficient to pay for the general consensus of governmental expenditure needs. Legislators should then distribute the revenue to the best uses based on current realities. A hodge podge of dedicated revenues for various sources deny the subjective and objective accountability I demand from my elected representatives.

But I do applaud your willingness to advocate a tax that you would pay. Too many people advocate tax increases that someone other than themself would pay.

For starters;;;

Property taxes for k-12 have been decreasing for about 75 percent of South dakotas school districts – stop the decrease, and in fact, increase k-12 local effort by the same “factor” (3% or inflation whichever is less) just like we do for counties and municipalities !!

Joseph, I’m not trying to take glory for anything. The bed and booze tax has been advocated by many, including me on various blogs over the last couple of years. I’ve been in favor of this statewide ever since I saw how high such taxes were in other states; and while we complained when we saw the amount, it in no way prevented us from going back to the same states again for visits.

I don’t care who gets any glory for anything. I just wish the politicians and powers that be would take note of this idea (and the pop tax idea) and DO something proactive for a change!

Any attempt to take BB&B money away from the tourism industry would be a hard fought battle.