Funding change for “Under 100” deferred
Posted Wednesday, February 6, 2013
House Education committee members voted to defer action on House Bill 1213, which would reduce the amount of state aid and eliminate the small school adjustment after school district drops under 100 total students for two consecutive years.
Executive Director Wade Pogany testified that the bill would “slowly erode” districts with under 100 students if state aid was decreased and the small school adjustment eliminated.
“Our preference would be to eliminate the “100 student” rule completely,” Pogany said
Current state law requires a school district, not classified as sparse, to consolidate when its enrollment dips below the 100 student line. HB 1213 would allow non-sparse districts with under 100 students to remain open, but would only provide a percentage of state aid based on the number students enrolled.
“(Districts) then have to make a decision,” Rep. Charlie Hoffman (23), the bill’s sponsor, testified. “It’s local control at its finest.”
Hoffman noted the “contentious” arguments consolidation creates in small communities and sees the bill as a way for small districts to remain open.
Pogany said he opposed the bill only because he felt Senate Bill 96 presented a more ideal option for small districts.
SB 96 would allow school districts with an enrollment under 100 to remain open, if they are exercising joint powers or intergovernmental cooperation in education. Districts could share teachers, courses or curriculums among other services while students remain in their home district. ASBSD supports the bill.
Committee members concluded action on HB 1213 and SB 96, which passed the Senate and is assigned to the House Education committee, should take place on the same day.
ASBSD will update the discussion when the bills come before the committee. Check the ASBSD blog and bill tracker for updates.
Categories:2013 Legislative Session, State Aid, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
Senators vote to keep forced consolidation
Posted Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Members of Senate Education voted 4-3 yesterday to kill
legislation to eliminate the state’s forced consolidation law, rebuffing a key
component of Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s agenda to return more local control to K-12
schools.
House Bill 1229 eliminates the 100-student minimum
enrollment threshold that was enacted in the 2007 legislative session. ASBSD,
the governor’s office and the Department of Education testified in support of
the legislation.
Sen. Bob Gray, R-Pierre, led the charge against HB 1229,
telling lawmakers that it’s a mistake to “hold on to these districts” that he
called inefficient. “Sometimes [local school boards] need a push because they
won’t do the right thing,” Sen. Gray said. “As legislators and taxpayers, we need to
say enough is enough.”
The final vote represented a divide between legislators
representing small and large schools. Senators Jim Bradford, D-Pine Ridge,
Cooper Garnos, R-Presho, and Tim Rave, R-Baltic, all voted in support of the
plan.
The measure passed the House on a 57-12 vote. It’s unknown whether there will be an attempt to revive the
legislation through legislative procedure.
Categories:2011 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
Update: House Ed votes to scrap forced consolidation
Posted Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Members of House Education took the first step Wednesday to
scrapping the state’s policy that forces schools to close if district
enrollment drops below 100 students. Lawmakers endorsed HB 1229 by a 10-3 vote,
sending the governor-backed bill to the House floor.
The minimum district size was established in 2007 as part of
a large package of education reforms that included revisions to the state aid
formula and an adjustment to fund balance limitations. Since then, there have
been several failed attempts to raise the enrollment threshold.
House Education Chair Rep. Thomas Brunner, R-Nisland, gave
up his gavel to act as the lone opponent of the legislation. He asked committee
members to reject the bill, arguing the need to keep the 2007 reforms intact.
According to Rep. Brunner, establishing a minimum district size was the piece of
the 2007 reform package that prevented large schools from opposing the omnibus
legislation. Keeping the law in place, he argued, is a “matter of fairness.”
Gov. Daugaard dispatched senior policy advisor Tony Venhuizen
to testify in support of the measure. He told lawmakers that repealing the
minimum size would give local education leaders the respect they deserve.
Venhuizen also challenged the notion that large schools benefit from forced
consolidation.
“I don’t think you make your own candle brighter by blowing
out someone else’s,” Venhuizen said.
ASBSD Executive Director Wayne Lueders also testified in
support of the bill. He told committee members that ASBSD believes
reorganization should be voluntary and initiated by the voters in small
communities. Lueders also said eliminating the minimum size rids our state of
the “fear factor” that arises as district enrollment starts to dwindle – a situation
he said sometimes forces schools to seek students through open enrollment just
to keep the school doors open.
Categories:2011 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
House Ed shoots down school administratioin sharing
Posted Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Members of House Education dismissed a plan Wednesday that
would have turned the state’s six education service agencies into large school
administration units. Lawmakers turned
away HB 1093
on a 13-1 vote based mostly on the bill’s intrusion on a local school district’s
autonomy.
Rep. Scott Munsterman, R-Brookings, tried to convince
lawmakers that the state’s current financial situation means schools need to
look for ways to be more efficient.
“I truly believe we have to look alongside of [K-12 funding
cuts] for strategic improvements in how we spend our money,” Munsterman said.
According to the proposed law, schools with enrollments
below 1,000 would have been assigned to an ESA, which would provide the
administrative services of a superintendent, business office and other
high-level school administrators. Each ESA would have to serve at least 1,500
students.
ASBSD Executive Director Wayne Lueders testified against the
bill, arguing the bill would have a tremendous impact on local control and student
achievement. He told lawmakers that research is clear that administrators a
great amount of influence on a school and the quality of education students
receive.
“The thing we’re going to lose here is the leadership of
those administrators,” he said.
Lawmakers said they were supportive of the bill’s goal to
save administrative costs. Rep. Mark Venner, R-Pierre, voted against the bill
after saying he hopes schools take steps on their own to share administration.
“If we’ve ever had a climate where this kind of vision needs
to be put to use, it’s now,” Venner said. “I would just hope that what we’ve
talked through today opens a few eyes.”
Categories:2011 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
Bill filed to repeal 100-student minimum
Posted Monday, January 24, 2011
Gov. Dennis Daugaard pledged to repeal the 100-student
minimum district size law and now he’ll have to chance to convince lawmakers to
deliver on his promise.
A measure to rid the state of its forced consolidation law
has been filed in the House of Representatives. House Bill
1091 is sponsored by Rep. Susy Blake, D-Sioux Falls, and Assistant Senate
Majority Leader Cory Brown, R-Gettysburg.
Categories:2011 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
Bill would make ESAs administration centers
Posted Monday, January 24, 2011
Schools with less than 1,000 students would be forced to
share top-level administrators if a recently filed measure makes its way
through the legislative process.
House Bill 1093 requires the state’s education service
agencies to start offering administrative services by July 1, 2014. Each local school
district would be assigned to a regional ESA, which would act as the superintendent
and business office, and provide other school management services. ESAs would
not be allowed to employ principals – local school boards would be allowed to
hire the building-level administrators.
The measure also alters the ESA advisory boards, allowing
each school board served by the ESA to have a representative on the advisory
board.
The measure is sponsored by Rep. Scott Munstermann,
R-Brookings, and Sen. Elizabeth Kraus, R-Rapid City.
Categories:2011 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
House clips consolidation incentives
Posted Thursday, February 25, 2010
After a two-year effort to turn consolidation incentives
into a reimbursements for some costs associated with school mergers, the House
of Representatives has voted Tuesday to eliminate the three-year payments to
schools who reorganize.
Rep. Thomas Brunner, R-Nisland, spoke in favor of the bill
on the floor. He told lawmakers that the payments haven’t worked to decrease the
number of school districts because schools don’t decide to merge for financial
reasons. The savings to the state, he suggested, could be used in the future to
increase the per-student allocation.
Democrats, who block-voted against the bill, were joined in
their opposition by three Republican lawmakers.
Rep. Paul Dennert, D-Columbia, said the incentive helps ease
the financial burden that comes with consolidation and suggested the move falls
into the category of “promises made, promises broken.”
The bill is won’t save the state any money next year.
Currently, no schools are scheduled to merge next year, meaning the state won’t
pick up any costs it otherwise wouldn’t have incurred. Passage of the bill
doesn’t impact incentives currently being paid.
The bill now goes to the Senate. ASBSD opposes the
legislation.
Categories:2010 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
House kills administration regions
Posted Friday, February 12, 2010
A proposal to allow the department of education to create
school administration regions was soundly defeated Friday in House Education,
voting 11-3 to send HB 1247 to the 41st Legislative Day.
The proposal, sponsored by Rep. Jacqueline Sly, R-Rapid City, authorized the Department of
Education into 500-student regions that would share administrative positions.
While it didn’t force consolidation, school boards lost the authority to hire
any administrative position other than principals.
According to Rep. Sly, the bill promised savings up to $5.5
million by reducing the number of administrative centers to approximately 100.
The savings would devote more resources to the classroom, she said.
Opponents blasted the concept, suggesting that the proposal
ignores the realities of South Dakota
school districts. Many said forced sharing of superintendents and business
managers wouldn’t save money and would be extremely difficult for
administrators to manage up to five separate districts.
For the committee members, the plan offered too much too
fast and was an affront to local control.
Rep. Noel Hamiel, R-Mitchell, voted against the bill, questioning
whether the bill would deliver the promised savings. He also spoke up in favor
of school superintendents, professing to their value to the school and
community.
Though he voted against the bill for its top-down focus,
Rep. Thomas Brunner, R-Nisland, cautioned lawmakers against “glorifying the
role of the superintendent” and challenged school boards “to start waking up”
and to “do the right thing” by sharing administration.
Categories:2010 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
Bill would eliminate consolidation incentives
Posted Thursday, February 4, 2010
Just three years after doubling consolidation incentives as
a part of a school finance overhaul, a group of lawmakers are seeking to
eliminate the payments all together.
The bill, filed as HB 1181, is sponsored by House Education
Chair Ed McLaughlin, R- Rapid City, and Sen. Craig Tieszen, R-Rapid City.
Under the proposed change, the state would not provide
incentives for consolidations agreed to after July 1, 2010. Schools that are
currently due incentives will not be impacted..
The legislation marks a final blow for consolidation
incentives, which have been significantly reduced during the past two sessions.
At one time, the payments were perceived to give smaller schools a bargaining
chip in the consolidation process. As currently structured, they merely help
defray some costs associated with mergers.
ASBSD opposes the legislation.
Categories:2010 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
House committee endorses whole-grade sharing
Posted Wednesday, March 4, 2009
UPDATE - 03.06.09 - The House passed the legislation on a 60-2 vote. The bill will now be forwarded to the governor.
The House Education committee approved legislation Wednesday that would allow school districts to share entire grades of students.
The measure, filed as SB 140, grants local school boards more authority to improve academic course offerings and realize financial efficiencies by working through local cooperative agreements. The bill has been touted as the academic equivalent to athletic sports co-ops.
Sen. Julie Bartling, D-Burke, worked with ASBSD and the Department of Education to develop legislation that she told lawmakers was “another tool for school districts to offer a well-rounded education for students in their districts.”
ASBSD Executive Director Wayne Lueders testified in support of the legislation, telling lawmakers that the concept provides more flexibility to school districts and has wide support within the education community.
“It's one of the top three priorities for associated school boards this year,” Lueders said, referring to legislative priorities adopted by the ASBSD Delegate Assembly.
Representatives from the Department of Education, School Administrators of South Dakota, the South Dakota Coalition of Schools and the South Dakota Education Association also supported the legislation.
Committee members praised the legislation, calling it a “good step forward” an effort to “do what's best for kids" and "a win-win."
The measure will be debated by the full House this week.
Categories:2009 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
Parents, local school officials blast consolidation mandate
Posted Friday, February 20, 2009
Parents, school board members and administrators turned out in force Friday to stand-up for small schools, turn away mandatory consolidation and stall cuts to the small school adjustment.
The grassroots advocates – some with matching shirts and coordinated testimony – were in Pierre to testify against HB 1254, a plan by House Education Chair Ed McLaughlin, R-Rapid City, that would have closed 60 South Dakota schools and dramatically reduced the value of the small school adjustment.
Rep. McLaughlin called the plan “comprehensive,” saying it delivers higher per-student increases to all schools while taking away what he said was a “financial incentive” for districts to stay small by choice.
Diana Miller, a lobbyist for 11 large school districts, spoke in favor of the legislation, urging lawmakers to keep the bill alive as a bargaining chip for negotiations with the Senate. She said she's not opposed to small schools or the small school adjustment, but told lawmakers that schools shouldn't be used to keep small towns alive.
After hearing from the bill's few supporters, committee members heard from a long-line of critics, including officials from ASBSD and the South Dakota Department of Education.
A contingent of small-school champions representing the Langford School District told lawmakers that parents make a conscious decision to send their children to smaller schools. Children benefit from small class sizes and the sense of community, they argued.
Langford resident Jennifer Gustafson, who testified against consolidation mandates earlier this session, questioned why lawmakers would consider forced consolidation.
“I see no evidence that forced consolidation either saves money or improves education,” Gustafson said, after presenting lawmakers with a collection of research she had compiled on the impact of forced consolidation in other states.
Joining Jennifer in opposition was Gina Williams, a member of the Langford School Board, who urged lawmakers to vote in favor of local control.
“Our school board takes its job very seriously,” Williams said. “We remain vigilant in ensuring the quality of education.”
Administrators and parents from Estelline and Oldham-Ramona also testified against the bill, affirming the quality of education in their local schools and stressing the importance of parental choice.
Iroquois resident Lori Hintz took her opposition to the bill a step further, telling lawmakers that the constant discussion about minimum school size is deterring families from making a home in the rural town.
“It's hard to get our numbers up when there is this constant fear about schools closing,” Hintz said. “There's a fear factor with the consistent scare tactic.”
Representatives from the South Dakota Coalition of Schools and the Sioux Falls School District also testified in opposition.
Lawmakers, clearly moved by the host of small school supporters, quickly dispatched of the forced consolidation provision and cuts to small school funding, leaving only language that would change the definition of the index factor.
The amendment says per-student increases will be between 3 or 4 percent annually, but several legislators said they likely wouldn't support the language and were just amending the bill alive so they can make changes to it later.
Categories:2009 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
Committee holds hearing on school administration regions
Posted Wednesday, February 18, 2009
House Education heard testimony but delayed action on a bill that would require the Department of Education to create regional school administration structures.
Under HB 1293, the Department of Education will assign school districts into “school administration regions.” Each geographic region needs to be comprised of at least 3,000 students. Districts with enrollments above 3,000 students are exempt, and the secretary can organize smaller regions to serve sparsely populated areas.
Rep. David Lust, R-Rapid City, the prime sponsor of the measure, said the legislation would create a county-superintendent structure – an alignment he said worked well in the past. Approving the bill could improve teacher salaries, Lust said.
Sheryl Kirkeby, president of the Rapid City Area Schools Board of Education, said the legislation was a good idea. She said sharing would provide school districts with access to a more diverse set of administrative services and would be a better use of taxpayer dollars.
ASBSD opposed the bill, reminding lawmakers that administrators wear multiple hats in small districts and the law wouldn't lead to building-level savings.
ASBSD Chief Financial Officer Bill Lynch, a former business manager, told committee members that the bill would be a challenge for administrators. He said having to handle administrative duties for multiple school districts would mean overseeing separate policy manuals, separate negotiated agreements, separate budgets and separate sets of board minutes.
“I think you're asking a great deal of one individual,” Lynch said.
Harding County Superintendent Ruth Krogh also testified against the legislation. Her district spent two years without a Superintendent and the school board and staff asked her to testify on their behalf because they want to keep their superintendent local, Krogh said.
The committee will take action of the legislation on Friday.
Categories:2009 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
Whole-grade sharing bill applauded, approved
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009
Members of Senate Education unanimously endorsed legislation Thursday that would allow school districts to share entire grades of students.
Lawmakers showered praise on SB 140 and eventually placed the bill on the consent calendar – a move usually reserved for legislation that will face no opposition.
ASBSD worked with Sen. Julie Bartling, D-Burke, and the Department of Education to develop and introduce the legislation. The legislation marks ASBSD's commitment to fulfilling legislative priorities set by school board members during the ASBSD Delegate Assembly.
Sen. Bartling told committee members that the legislation would give schools another tool to improve educational opportunities for students. She also said the legislation may encourage cooperation as a step towards consolidation.
Jack Broome, superintendent of the Burke and Bonesteel-Fairfax school districts, testified in support of the legislation. Broome said the two districts share a number of staff and programs, but consolidation isn't financially feasible because a merger would result in the loss of $1 million in federal funds.
“This is just another step to allow us to do more sharing,” Broome said. “It's a logical step.”
Committee members offered full-throated support for the measure.
“Everybody testified stated that the kids' needs are first,” said. Sen. Russell Olson, R-Madison. “I think this a good piece of legislation.”
State Senator Sandy Jerstad, D-Sioux Falls, called the bill a “creative and positive solution that is going to be for the betterment of students.”
The measure will be heard by the full Senate next week.
Categories:2009 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
Committee kills forced consolidation measure
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2009
House Education dismissed a plan Wednesday to close 30 school districts, arguing that consolidation is best left in the hands of local school boards.
The committee voted 12-3 to kill HB 1182, a measure that would have raised the minimum district size to 195.
The bill's prime sponsor, Rep. Jim Bolin, R-Canton, cited clustered school districts in Turner and Aurora counties as examples of schools that could make more efficient use of taxpayer dollars. He acknowledged opposition to the bill, but insisted that forced consolidation remains a topic lawmakers should discuss, especially in tough economic times.
House Education Vice Chair Bill Van Gerpen, R-Tyndall, opposed the legislation.
“I think we've seen forced consolidation just doesn't really work,” Van Gerpen said. “I think that if we just sit back and let the local people take action that this thing will resolve itself.”
The committee took action today, but the majority of the testimony was offered Monday (read more here). ASBSD opposed the legislation.
Categories:2009 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
Oster takes stand against forced consolidation
Posted Monday, February 2, 2009
Opponents of mandatory school consolidation finally have an ally in state government.
Newly appointed Secretary of Education Tom Oster signaled a change in the Department of Education's philosophy on forced consolidation Monday, testifying in opposition to legislation that would increase the minimum school size to 195 students.
Oster asked lawmakers to defeat HB 1182, leveraging arguments against the perception that state-mandated consolidation saves money.
“Anyone suggesting consolidation saves money has not looked at the facts,” said Secretary Oster, reminding committee members that the state funds students, not school districts. “When you throw into the mix increased transportation costs, [consolidation is] not a saver.”
Oster told lawmakers that schools should be free to operate without state intervention if the district satisfies provisions of No Child Left Behind and offers coursework required by South Dakota's opportunity scholarship.
Secretary Oster's testimony marks a shift in the state department's philosophy under Dr. Rick Melmer, who served as state school chief since 2003.
Melmer advocated consolidation, often challenging school districts to realize efficiencies and improve academic course offerings. During his tenure as secretary, Melmer said the Legislature must force consolidation because many school districts, even when provided with incentives, would not decide to merge on their own.
On Monday, Secretary Oster countered that notion, telling lawmakers that consolidation is happening naturally due to “economic requirements.” According to the state department, 156 school districts will operate next year, down from 195 in 1980.
ASBSD joined in opposition to the legislation, telling lawmakers that school board members believe in voluntary reorganization.
Representatives of the South Dakota Coalition of Schools and School Administrators of South Dakota also asked lawmakers to defeat the bill.
Though the Department of Education will oppose efforts to increase the minimum districts size above 100, Secretary Oster is committed to ensuring the current law is enforced.
Before testifying in opposition to HB 1182, Oster stood against measures that sought to create exemptions or delay implementation of the law. He has also sought more authority to implement consolidation if schools falling below the minimum size fail to act.
Action on HB 1182 was delayed until Wednesday.
Categories:2009 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
House Education endorses one high school per county
Posted Monday, February 2, 2009
Members of House Education approved HB 1171 Monday, legislation that would create an exemption to the state's minimum school size law if there's only one high school remaining in a county.
Rep. Charles Hoffman, a Republican who served on the Eureka School Board for 12 years, was the prime sponsor of the measure he said would “give credence to democracy” by allowing local communities to control the fate of their school district.
Jack Adkins, Herreid School District Superintendent, testified for the legislation.
Adkins said he doesn't expect the district to drop below 100 students in the near future, but there is strong community support to maintain a K-12 presence in the county. Herreid is the only high school left in Campbell County, a school district in bordering North Dakota that is 25 miles away from the nearest South Dakota attendance center.
The Department of Education opposed the legislation, asking lawmakers to resist creating exemptions and suggesting it wouldn't be fair to schools that have already reorganized under the law.
Legislators disagreed, passing HB 1171 on a 9-6 vote.
ASBSD supported the legislation, telling lawmakers that reorganization should be voluntary and voted upon by local citizens.
Categories:2009 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
Forced consolidation legislation slated for Monday
Posted Friday, January 30, 2009
A legislative proposal that would close approximately 35 school districts will be up for consideration as early as Monday.
According to HB 1182, school districts with enrollments below 195 would be forced to prepare a consolidation plan within two years of dipping below the enrollment threshold. It's sponsored by Representative Jim Bolin, a teacher from Canton.
The current minimum districts size, established in 2007, is 100 students.
ASBSD opposes the legislation based on our standing position that reorganization must be voluntary.
The bill is scheduled for House Education on Monday, but may not get a hearing that day. If it passes, it must go to the House floor and make its way through the Senate before becoming law.
Categories:2009 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (1) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
Senate drops plan to remove local vote from consolidation
Posted Friday, January 23, 2009
The Senate scored an early victory for local control advocates Wednesday, defeating legislation that would have given the state the authority to close small school districts that fail to plan for consolidation within two years of dropping below 100 students.
Senators voted down SB 34 on a 11-23 vote, proving they aren't willing to give the state the power to override the will of local voters.
Sen. Cory Brown, R-Gettysburg, asked lawmakers to defeat the bill.
“This is a government by the people, for the people,” Sen. Brown said. “Any time we try to abrogate that right from the people, it should not be taken lightly.”
The Department of Education asked for the change. It's thesecond time the DOE asked lawmakers to clarify the minimum size enrollment law. Last year, DOE officials proposed SB 23 only to see it defeated in the Senate floor.
Categories:2009 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
Committee stalls effort to limit non-contiguous reorganizations
Posted Tuesday, January 20, 2009
A proposal to prevent non-contiguous districts from consolidating is being held while lawmakers await more detail.
Education Secretary Tom Oster asked members of Senate Education to pass SB 38, a measure that requires merging districts to be geographic neighbors. According to the law, the Secretary can make an exception if a merger between non-contiguous districts is appropriate.
Oster told lawmakers that the change isn't intended to prevent non-contiguous mergers that “make sense.” Instead, the bill is aimed at closing a loophole in state law that could allow a small district to consolidate with a larger school on the other end of the state.
“There are some situations where it would make some sense to have a non-contiguous district exist,” Oster said. “But there are some situations where it doesn't make sense.”
To illustrate what would be considered an unacceptable merger, Oster cited a hypothetical example involving the Hurley School District, in Southeast South Dakota, voting to attach itself to the Rapid City School District.
“That would be a way for a school district to guarantee themselves an elementary school,” Oster said before clarifying for the committee that dissolve-and-attach laws only require the voter approval from the dissolving district.
ASBSD lobbyist Dick Tieszen opposed the bill, saying the proposal was unconstitutional and gave too much latitude to state officials.
“[The bill] doesn't provide the department with any guidance,” Tieszen said before asking lawmakers to clarify when the Secretary's exemption may be used. “Before you can delegate responsibility there has to be some careful criteria set forth.”
During committee question-and-answer, Oster told lawmakers that the Department would be open to creating conditions for the waiver process, saying it would make it easier to evaluate future reorganization plans.
The committee deferred action on the legislation, pending amendments.
Categories:2009 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
Senate Education tweaks mandatory consolidation law
Posted Tuesday, January 20, 2009
School districts that fail to prepare a reorganization plan within two years of dipping below the state's minimum enrollment will have a plan prepared and implemented for them, according to a piece of legislation endorsed by the Senate Education committee Tuesday morning.
Senators passed SB 34 on a 4-3 party-line vote, saying the legislation provides clarity to the state's minimum enrollment law passed two years ago.
Education Secretary Tom Oster asked for the change, telling legislators that the state needs some remedy for school districts that “have not done anything” since the enrollment floor became law.
Current law says districts must prepare a reorganization plan two years after falling below 100 enrolled students. The statute is silent, however, on what would occur if a district failed to prepare a plan or if a plan was prepared then voted down by the community.
Sen. Dave Knudson, R-Sioux Falls, voted for the proposal.
“I think this bill makes sense,” Knudson said. “You just need some sort of default position when you don't have cooperation.”
It's the second time the Department of Education has asked lawmakers to clarify the minimum size enrollment law. Last year, DOE officials proposed SB 23 only to see it defeated in the Senate floor.
The language proposed in 2008 was more heavy-handed, stating that districts must reorganize within two years or face state restructuring. Under SB 34, districts are required only to prepare a plan.
Sen. Ben Nesselhuf, D-Vermillion, voted against the measure, saying he opposes any attempts to force school districts to close.
“As somebody who is adamantly opposed to arbitrary minimums set by the state, I feel no obligation to make it easier,” he said.
The bill will be considered by the full Senate this week.
Categories:2009 Legislative Session, Consolidation, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story