In response to a Todd Epp story yesterday at the Dakota Scout story, where it was noted that the Sioux Falls School District reviewed the package of tax proposals being put forth by the legislature, House Majority Leader Scott Odenbach launched into a missive on social media which seems to indicate an agenda he may have planned for education during the next legislative session.
In the post, Odenbach ties property tax relief to an agenda which includes items such as consolidation of school districts, and the direct election of school superintendents:
Scott Odenbach for South Dakota House District 31
BECAUSE THAT’S WHERE ALL THE MONEY GETS SPENT
It’s time to tie proficiency test scores to incentives. (The test isn’t the problem.)
It’s time to reform capital outlay spending.
It’s time to look at consolidation of administration. And maybe direct election of superintendents, like sheriffs are.
It’s time to reform and/or automatically refer opt-out votes.
It’s time to disclose how much of your money is spent on status quo lobbyists like Large School Group, Associated School Boards of South Dakota, and others.
It’s time to break the money monopoly by giving parents more control with a good Education Savings Account program.
It’s time to better utilize virtual learning options for our rural families.
And more.
Do we want property tax relief or not?
Odenbach lays out an agenda which includes consolidation, electing school superintendents, learning by xbox (virtual learning), and measuring educators on the basis of their students. It remains to be seen how many others in the Republican caucus will agree with the agenda being pushed by the majority leader.
Odenbach takes issue with how schools currently handle capital outlay. Not sure exactly what that entails? The South Dakota Department of Revenue created a white paper to explain what Capital Outlay funds are, and what they’re used for in July of this year:
For the layman, this entails the funds for the purchase of real estate or equipment and is used for buying new or maintaining existing facilities, as well as for textbooks and costs to transport students.
It’s unclear what form “reform” would take, but it would likely entail cutting the use of capital outlay to pay for items such as textbooks. Which would leave schools having to look for the money elsewhere in their general funds.
Odenbach also notes items on his agenda such as going after school lobbyists, and one of his initiatives that had been quickly killed in the opening days of the last legislative session. If you recall, HB 1020 establishing education savings accounts, was opposed by Industry & Commerce, retailers, schools, school administrators, the Crow Creek tribe, homeschoolers, and a lot of others. Yet, it appears that it’s on the agenda to come back.
In one of the biggest stretches he’s proposing, Odenbach strangely declares his agenda items of the “consolidation of administration” and “the direct election of superintendents.” Consolidation has been a fringe topic that has come up from time to time, but has been largely rejected by the South Dakota legislature. But an even further stretch would be the direct election of school superintendents, despite the offices currently being filled by a board of local elected officials.
Scott should know who those people are, because Odenbach served on his local board, the Spearfish School Board from 2017 until 2021, where he was actively engaged in the system he proposes to replace; where superintendents are hired by local school boards after what in many cases are exhaustive searches for finding qualified and competent applicants to fill the positions. Unless he’s declaring that as a school board member, he was incapable or unqualified to do that job while he was on the board?
Would South Dakota want to elect school superintendents to be in charge of our children? Well, that proposal is just plain awful. I would point out that parents would be placing the future of South Dakota in the hands of who was the best campaigner at a given time.
Imagine if some of the people in our state legislature – instead of proposing bills in Pierre – were in charge of educating our kids? Would you hand the management of your School District over to “White History Month advocate” and aspiring Visine poisoner Travis Ismay? How about entrusting handing your kids’ education over to “kooky, wrong and dangerous” dj entertainer Dylan Jordan …who may be living in his gramma’s house?
That proposal should cause parents and taxpayers to absolutely shudder. I question if either can tie their shoes, much less be capable of being in charge of children.
And as referenced earlier, the “virtual learning” demand – I’m not sure why Scott thinks that would make things better in education. Anyone remember COVID? There are papers and studies and stories all confirming the fact that all in all – distance learning doesn’t work.
At the same time that schools are removing phones from students to improve instructional quality, why is the House Majority Leader declaring that somehow rural families are going to be better served by plopping kids in front of screens?
All in all, Rep. Odenbach’s attempt to tie tax reform to some very sketchy agenda items of his own for education is a recipe for disaster that South Dakotans should pay attention to – and reject thoroughly.
In my story for TDS and at the meeting, Sioux Falls School Board members went out of their way to say that the property tax issue is not an attack on education but comes out of concern for property taxpayers. They also said they want legislators to visit their local schools and see the good things the districts are doing. They were trying to be conciliatory.
Yep. And it didn’t take long for Liz Marty and Scott Odenbach to totally spin it with graphs that don’t tell the whole story. Thanks again for your story.
To my rural people – get a digital ink monitor and you’re good.
Rural schools are often the heart of their community. They use sporting events to meet and socialize. Much of the discussion in the coffee shop revolves around the school and its activities. People whose children have long since graduated and moved away still attend every event or sit on the board. Scott is out of touch with the rural districts and is attempting to tear apart the public school system because he doesn’t like the curriculum.
People think the school is the heart of a community but it isn’t. They think if they lose the school they’ll lose the town, but they lost their town when the grocery store closed; if you want to keep a town alive, you need to shop locally.
Having a school that hosts regular athletic/other events brings in people to that community from all over the region. They spend money and support local businesses on a regular basis. If you want to keep a town alive, yes, shop locally. But you also need to bring in other to shop there as well.
Scott, I hope you read this. You grew up in a town with a current population of around 794. Your mother was a teacher. And a damn good one. The majority of your family, including a niece still in school, and your son, are currently living there. The type of proposals you are pushing will kill school districts like Eureka. While you might have the best interests of your donors in the hills in mind, don’t forget where you came from, where your family is, and where your future generations will be.
Great post. I had his mother for a teacher and she was great! The teachers in eureka are still great! Maybe we should tie proficiency to state aid. The majority of small schools would rank in the top and be able to operate without the fear of being shut down due to low enrollment.(bowdle) larger school districts by and large would struggle and not receive the state aid. It’s sad that most of these legislators and the people who support this idea have gotten wonderful educations in rural schools and have now moved to more urban areas where there are options abound. We don’t have those some of those options in rural South Dakota.
The idea of electing by popular vote the local school superintendent is ludicrous and shows a complete ignorance of the role of the administrator in the management of the schools within a district. Sometimes decisions can be made in regards to what may be popular; those types of decisions though are extremely rare. A good superintendent makes decisions based on what is in the best- fir the students, teachers and other staff, and the patrons of the district.
Remember when you go to the Primaries, a vote for Jon Hansen is a vote for Scott Odenbach as Scott will most likely be gifted a cabinet/state position in a Hansen administration.
I can’t wait to see what Scott and John do with the House Committee on education to try and get some of these fecal ideas to a floor vote. They literally stacked the committee with bought and paid for Liberty Tree PAC Odenbach candidates last year and couldn’t get anything accomplished. Now bring in the fact that managed have already endorsed Doeden, they will most certainly not let Hansen get any wins this session. I believe it’s time for Scott and Jon to go back to lawyering. Not even bringing in the pipeline into the equation, they have literally cost South Dakotan’s so much money with their establishment legislating over the last 6-8 years, it will be a while before even our children dig out of the mess they put us in. Also Scott, please let have your lobbyists at AFP do a better job of writing a factual public education hit piece next time.
Does Scott have a law firm anymore?
I believe he has a law firm and a real estate marketing outfit in Spearfish. For anyone that is wondering, Scott had one employee listed during COViD and took almost 12k of PPP money from the taxpayers to keep himself whole and is was all a forgiven loan that did not have to be paid back. Most real estate agents thrived during COVID. His hypocrisy knows no limits. I will forever refer to his law and real estate practice as a Government law office, just as his AFP brothers and sisters call out public schools by the name, Government Schools.
I hope his minions run on this platform!
It is ridiculous that every school has a superintendent, a principal, and numbers of vice principals.
There need only be one superintendent of schools per county, whose office should be in the county seat. Then one principal per school. As for vice principals, that office did not exist at one high school I attended along with 1499 other students.
Just look at the nonsense going on in the Oldham-Ramona-Rutland district: 42 staff members for 193 students. Day care centers for preschoolers don’t require such a high staff to child ratio.
They vote on December 16th
Name one Class B school with a vice principal hag.
How can anyone possibly justify staffing any school, at a ratio of 1 staff position per 4.6 students?
Rural areas had one room schoolhouses for a reason and produced good results.
name one school with an enrollment greater than 1000 that DOESN’T have a vice principal now.
Daycare ratios are as follows: 1:5 for children under 3, and the ratio of staff to children in ORR is 1:4.59.
Aren’t those kids potty-trained yet?
So you’re choosing to validate your whole belief in gutting rural schools off of just one district. Cool, very logical and not at all shortsighted.
And speaking of potty-trained, how many of ORRs students are in need of an IEP, where they need the assistance of a teachers aid? Maybe dig into those numbers before coming across as a fool.
You are an absolute idiot if you think that Minnehaha County needs just one Super for the six school districts that are here, with each one having its own unique challenges and needs. Then again, you’re the Queen of believing your anecdotal bullshit is superior to everything else on earth.
What a wild take. Coming from a class B school district, we haven’t had a principal in 20 years. Give or take. Just a superintendent. If you think teachers and staff have too easy of a job, go spend a week with them. It’s very easy to arm chair quarterback on this one.
Wanting to have one principal per county isn’t even an option. Many school districts cover multiple counties. But let’s look past that issue. You’re arguing to remove a superintendent from every community across the state except for 66 county seats. Every community and school district has their own needs, concerns, issues, ect. Removing that superintendent completely losses the community mindless they need to be successful. In some cases, it would be an hour plus drive for parents to go have a sit down conversation with the person in charge of the school their child goes to. Not to mention that in some counties, you would actually be adding a position by doing this. This idea is completely out of touch with reality.
Not to mention some county seats don’t even have a school!