South Dakota’s past battles over education funding and what goes to schools will start to warm up again as a one-two punch is predicted when it comes to schools this coming legislative session. First, the amount of money going to education is already being predicted to be lean, with the Governor’s budget only able to come up with a suggested 1.25% increase. According to a KELOland story posted last night:
The latest recommendation from the Governor at 1.25 percent could mean some belt-tightening.
“When the CPI which is what the codified law calls for, it calls for a 2.4 or a 2.6 percent increase, and we end up getting a 1.25 if that comes to pass it really does make it difficult to make any kind of inroads,” said Harrisburg Superintendent Tim Graf.
Lawmakers like Representative Greg Jamison of Sioux Falls say it’s back to reality for the state budget. The Covid dollars are gone and tax revenue is flat, which means less money to allocate.
As problematic as the leaner dollars are for public education, of equal or greater concern to schools are the Governor’s proposal of a $3000 per student program to fund private school tuition:
The Governor proposed the creation of a 4 million dollar education savings account program, which she says would offer 3-thousand dollars per student toward private school tuition. Graff says that money could go a long ways in funding public education.
Read that in the same place at KELOland.com.
Who is going to be eligible for such a program? It had better make sure EVERYONE is eligible from the start. Because the state’s ultimate responsibility to provide an education to our children is governed by Article 8 of the South Dakota Constitution, which says:
§ 1. Uniform system of free public schools. The stability of a republican form of government depending on the morality and intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schools wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all; and to adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education.
You can read that for yourself here.
How will the program get past the constitutional mandate that “tuition shall be without charge?” That’s a good question, and there may be a very good answer. But I’m more focused on the portion that talks about how schools must be “equally open to all,”
My main concern with the program is that it doesn’t turn our neighborhood public schools into ghettos or warehouses for those who can’t afford the rest of the private school tuition, as well as for students who might have special needs who are now left behind because no one thought to include them as part of the proposed program.
I believe there is an argument that allowing public funds to be spent on private school tuition could open up the doors for it to fall under the parameters of the South Dakota Constitutional mandate of needing to be “equally open to all.” And if that’s the case, the legislature had better be making sure the appropriate strings are attached to these public funds being spent on private school tuition to ensure equal access to those with special education needs.
Because there are also federal laws which guarantee that students with disabilities have the same right to K-12 public education that students without disabilities have. And the US Office of Civil Rights works to ensure “that public elementary and secondary schools, including charter schools, provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all qualified students with disabilities.”
If we can create better schools in the process, it could be a good thing. But we need to ensure that it’s a good thing for everyone. Not just a select few. If these new charter schools want public funds, they should be subject to the same public laws that protect ALL of our kids.
If you think the taxes you pay now are high wait till the door opens on this taxpayer funded voucher scheme for private religious schools gets going. This is only the beginning. Lack of transparency issues, poor outcomes, discrimination increases, an increasing disparity in education with our public school systems being severely hurt. More rural school systems will be forced to consolidate.
If this somehow passes in the legislature more than likely a ballot measure to reverse it will result. There is growing public backlash against vouchers recognizing the scam that is is.
Oh man. I want to sit in on the education committee meetings this year. Or they should at least be recorded for our enjoyment. I can’t wait to hear the things that people, like Travis Ismay, have to contribute.
“If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.” Sun Tzu The Art of War
Representative Travis Ismay who is well versed in Sun Tzu patiently waits for the 100th SD legislative session to commence.
So this whole time, for his entire life, Ismay has been pretending to be an idiot, waiting for just this moment to show his brilliance? Got it.
A reminder that Committee meeting recordings are brought to you by the work of South Dakota Public Broadcasting.
Please don’t use my tax dollars to subsidize indoctrination of children. If you want your kids to go to a private school, pay for it yourself.
You’ve got a better chance of a frog carrying a scorpion across a river than the far-right making sure that they don’t let students with disabilities fall away.
That’s partially why I bring it up.
But, don’t be so quick to judge as you would be surprised the number of families who are touched by someone with a disability. It’s one of the reasons I’m very supportive of Governor Noem. She might take a lot of flak for other things, but her tenure as Governor has been very good for families of kids with disabilities.
It’s been good through none of her doings. Daugaard was far better in terms of progress, and she’s just been coasting on his coattails on that front.
I don’t know that I agree, not that Dennis was bad by any means but Kristi got several things done that we were unable to accomplish and that we had previously received pushback from the Daugaard Administration on before finally being able to pass after a hard 2-year fight, versus Kristi just making things happen.
https://dakotawarcollege.com/gov-kristi-noem-should-be-commended-for-work-in-helping-expand-coverage-for-aba-therapy-capacity-to-deliver-services-is-part-of-next-big-step/
It might have just been the point in history that we were in, but after the legislature kind of whiffed the ball, Kristi got the job done administratively, and went an extra mile with insurers when it was not being lobbied for.
Let her have the win, it was well deserved.
well-pointed-out. thanks.
Your optimism is noted, but the legislatures/governors inability (or callousness) to look out for the weak and marginalized in our state is enough to warrant healthy skepticism.
They refused to do anything to protect minors from abusive relationships (refusing to eliminate child marriage or allow children to divorce their creeps that they’re married to), refused any aid to childcare providers, refused to spend $600k to make sure that no child would be denied lunch at school during the school year, we have no guaranteed parental leave for non-state employees, no exceptions to rape or incest in cases of abortion, rejected federal funds to outright pay for free-summer meals to low income students, and the list goes on. And that was all with a legislature that had a fraction of the inmates that have escaped the asylum.
We can hope for progress. Republicans should recognize that there should be exceptions under the law, or it will come back to bite them in a better ballot measure. And on one of the few issues I agree with Rep. Kadyn Wittman on, it is insane that we permit child marriage in South Dakota (which if you believe statistics a vast majority are minor girls being wed to adult men who are on avearge 4 years older.) We aren’t in the 1950’s anymore.
We may not be in the 50’s, but Odenbach and Co will sure as hell try and drag us there, if not farther back.
I’m surprised to see this here and completely in agreement.
I think they’ll say “oh yeah sure it’s open to anyone” but like you said, there’s tuition fees on TOP of this free taxpayer money so that means it’s essentially limited to only those that can afford the additional cost. Which means it’s not open to everyone. And also, my tax dollars should NOT pay for a religious education. Full stop. Public dollars for public education. You already have a choice, public or privately funded private school.
It has been shown to be fairly common that once this voucher scheme is enacted these private religious schools raise their tuition. It will be just the beginning of being appropriated substantially more taxpayer funding annually once they open that door. Meanwhile public school systems are decimated.
“Lawmakers like Representative Greg Jamison of Sioux Falls say it’s back to reality with the State Budget. The COVID dollars are gone and tax revenue is flat meaning less dollars to allocate “
So,
Let’s look at some facts….
Michigan revenue from Cannabis sales in 2023
$87 MILLION
Montana
28.5 MILLION
Colorado
$47 MILLON
and, Missouri since 2019
$100 MILLION
On June 9th , 2010 The Grand Falls Casino
opens just over the Iowa border 10 miles from Sioux Falls because we didn’t want a casino.
Iowa wins …South Dakota looses.
Now, after all of the Scare tactics from Protect
South Dakota Kids worked, our neighbor to the East (Minnesota) will have Non-Medical Cannabis
available 15 miles from Sioux Falls.
Minnesota wins…South Dakota looses AGAIN.
Maybe PSDK’s should have spent more money
ACTUALLY protecting kids by focusing on the
former campaign treasure Clark Ericks and Joel Koskans.
On another note, I finally realized why our Governor went to Texas to get a new set of teeth.
Evidently, you need 4 teeth to graduate from Castlewood High.
She was one short.
South Dakota truly is the Mississippi of the North.
Predictably once again when those advocating for a poverty industry running off an addiction for profit business model such as today’s super high potency THC they never mention costs!
You must work for United Healthcare.
In general, this is a great idea. However, since most of the funds are direct from the feds or local funds mandated by the feds, what will it take to get those funds to follow these children with disabilities who choose private schools?
Private schools will set admission standards so those people won’t qualify.
Appreciate your prognostication as I’m sure you are intimate with the thoughts of many private schools, but it doesn’t answer the question:
How can we get the federal direct and federally mandated funds to follow the child to the private schools?
The private schools have provide the accountability, transparency, and compliance. Which are expensive, which is why they’ve refused to do so in the past when it comes to accepting federal dollars, which is why the whole idea is a poorly-thought out impractical money-suck.
Good point. Complying with federal rules is expensive. Let’s abolish the USDept. of Ed. and let the States figure out what is right for each State.
But, if there is no federal or local taxpayer dollars required for children with disabalities that can follow the child, suggesting vouchers/etc. should only happen if private schools assume the costs for these extraordinary services is to make private schools do something the general fund of public schools don’t bear.
We tend to forget the enormous struggle it was to institute the federal Special Education law in the school districts of South Dakota. A thirty year struggle to establish funding that involved parents, teachers, school board members, and school administrators, as well as legislators and activists. Special Education in South Dakota has been widely successful in providing a “free and accessible education” to all children regardless of disability though it can be a painful struggle for many families and success is still dependent on geography. The greatest success has been the acceptance of special education students by their peers and their inclusion in the life of our schools.
Private school tuition should be individual parent’s responsibility and choice. Private school education should not be a public responsibility to fund.
I know math is hard, but the state currently spends $10,208 per pupil per year.
The governor wants to give families $3000 per kid to leave the public schools and attend private schools, with the parents paying the difference..
The parents will continue to pay property taxes.
No rebate for opting out of the public schools.
This saves the state $7,208 per pupil per year.
That’s money that can be spent on the kids who don’t leave.
This ‘napkin math’ won’t hold up in the real world. If the state spends $3,000,000 for 1,000 students, you’re telling us we’re going to save over $7,000,000. Do you have some magic beans for sale? You’ve missed other crucial variables in this equation.
I know a great deal of the money is federal and depends on enrollment numbers.
But doesn’t it save the taxpayers money if families opt out of public education?
Not when you pay for incarceration and welfare because they can’t get a job that pays a livable wage.