South Dakota students will only be able to open-enroll at the beginning of a semester unless school boards determine special circumstances exist, members of the South Dakota House of Representatives decided Wednesday.

Legislators agreed to amendments on HB 1189, and voted 65-4 to send the bill to the governor’s desk.

If signed into law, open enrollment requests may only be accepted before the last Friday in September or the last Friday in January. If a request is granted outside of those dates, the transfer will occur at the beginning of the next semester. The deadlines don’t apply if the student wants to attend an alternative school, is moving into the district, or if a school board determines that “special circumstances” exist that make the transfer necessary.

The law does not impact transfers of students to different schools within a school district.

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

Members of House Appropriations on Wednesday tuned away a proposal to change the amount of revenue school districts receive for open-enrolled students, narrowly defeating Senate Bill 85 on a 5-4 vote.

Sen. Larry Tiedemann, R-Brookings, pitched the measure as a correction to the state aid formula, acknowledging that the measure would shift existing funds and “some [schools] are going to get more money, there’s some that will lose money.” Adoption of the small school factor was a political issue used in 1995 to garner support for revamping the formula, he said, arguing that it’s time to revisit the issue.

Supporters of the measure offered slight changes to the plan Wednesday. As originally drafted, schools would only receive small school adjustment funding for students who reside within the district. Under the amended version, schools would only lose funding if the student open-enrolled from a school that didn’t qualify for the small school adjustment.

Rep. Dan Dryden, R-Rapid City, said lawmakers should view the change as a move toward formula fairness. He said students shouldn’t be worth additional funding if they choose to enroll from a large district to smaller district.

Several superintendents from the state’s smaller schools lined up in opposition to the measure, telling lawmakers how the proposal would impact their districts.

Wolsey Wessington Superintendent James Cutshaw testified against the change, arguing the plan would cost his district more than $65,000. He told lawmakers that the district doesn’t advertise or recruit, but parents enroll their children in Wolsey-Wessington seeking better opportunities for their children.

“We teach, and we teach well. And we’ve got a good school district,” said Cutshaw. “Please don’t hurt the little schools because we’re doing a good job.”

According to Cutshaw, most students that open-enroll to Wolsey-Wessington are struggling academically and many come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Those students are more costly to educate, he said, and the district has developed special programs to give the students the special attention they deserve.

Lawmakers narrowly defeated the bill, arguing that the policy would lead to hardship for the state’s smallest schools.

“We’ve got a broken formula, and we’re fighting over crumbs,” said Rep. Susan Wismer, D-Britton. She expressed frustration that the state’s school finance policy appears aimed at starving small schools out of existence, a trend she said is demonstrated by bills like Senate Bill 85.

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

Moments ago, the South Dakota Senate approved HB 1195 on a 25-6 vote. The bill will grant school boards the authority to charge fees to financially support voluntary academic programs, including driver education, pre-kindergarten and summer school programs. The margin was sufficient to clear the two-thirds majority needed to pass the bill with the emergency clause, meaning it will take effect once the governor signs the bill.

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

A student open-enrolling into a neighboring school district should have to do so by a state-established deadline, the House of Representatives decided Tuesday.

If adopted, open enrollment requests can be accepted before the last Friday in September or the last Friday in January. If a request is granted outside of those dates, the transfer will occur at the beginning of the next semester. The law does not allow for exemptions due to unusual circumstances.

ASBSD supports legislation to allow school boards to establish dates by which open-enrollment requests must be filed, but ASBSD is monitoring the legislation. 

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

The South Dakota Senate approved Wednesday a change in the state’s school funding formula that will provide schools with small school adjustment funding only for those students who reside within the boundaries of the district.

Sen. Mark Johnston, R-Sioux Falls, asked lawmakers to support SB 85, arguing that the measure bolstered fairness of the school funding formula. He said current law encourages schools to recruit across boundary lines – a practice he called upsetting.

Opponents of the measure, including Sen. Tim Begalka, R-Clear Lake, urged defeat of the plan they argued was an attack on small schools.

“This pits schools against schools,” he said. “This is a direct affront at small schools and the small school factor.”

The measure passed on a 20-14 vote, and now heads to the House. ASBSD is monitoring the legislation.

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

Parents should have the option to offset the costs of academic programs that aren’t required by state law, members of the South Dakota House of Representatives decided Wednesday.

Lawmakers voted 55-12 to approve HB 1195, an ASBSD-backed bill intended to clarify that school boards have the authority to charge for voluntary pre-kindergarten and driver education programs. The measure garnered enough support to pass with an emergency clause attached, which means the law takes effect once the governor signs the bill.

Floor debate focused mostly on a proposed amendment, offered by Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, to strike language allowing schools to charge for voluntary pre-k programs. Rep. Hunt pitched the amendment to correct what he said was overly broad language allowing schools to collect fees for providing “early childhood services.” He argued that the definition would open the door to charging for non-educational services and force private daycare providers out of business.

Rep. Nick Moser, R-Yankton, urged lawmakers to resist Rep. Hunt’s amendment, telling legislators that daycare providers in his community don’t oppose the measure and aren’t fearful of competition. He said pre-k programs are often funded through public-private partnerships that seek to provide services that aren’t otherwise available in communities.

The amendment garnered 26 votes, 10 tallies shy of the majority support necessary to change the bill. After his amendment was defeated, Rep. Hunt asked lawmakers to support the bill in its original form. He expressed disappointment the amendment failed, but said passage of the bill would help young people across South Dakota.

The measure now moves to the Senate.

VOTE TALLY FOR HB 1195 

VOTING YES

Abdallah, Blake, Bolin, Boomgarden, Brunner, Carson, Conzet, Cronin, Deelstra, Dennert, Dryden, Fargen, Feinstein, Gibson, Greenfield, Haggar, Hawley, Hickey, Hoffman, Hunhoff (Bernie), Hunt, Iron Cloud III, Jones, Killer, Kirkeby, Kirschman, Kloucek, Lucas, Lust, Magstadt, Miller, Moser, Nelson (Stace), Novstrup (David), Perry, Romkema, Rozum, Schaefer, Schrempp, Scott, Sigdestad, Sly, Solum, Steele, Street, Stricherz, Turbiville, Van Gerpen, Vanneman, White, Wick, Wink, Wismer, Rausch

VOTING NO

Feickert, Gosch, Hansen (Jon), Hubbel, Jensen, Kopp, Liss, Russell, Tornow, Venner, Verchio, Willadsen

EXCUSED

Elliott, Munsterman, Olson (Betty)

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

A plan to allow schools to charge fees for voluntary pre-k and driver education courses encountered resistance Monday from opponents of early learning programs.

During public testimony on HB 1195, Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon, raised questions about whether schools should be allowed to charge for services that don’t have clearly defined standards. His comments came during time reserved for committee questions.

“We would be authorizing schools to charge for services that, as a legislative body, we do not know what they are going to provide,” Rep. Hunt said. He added that legislators have spent a lot of time outlining public school curriculum, and passing HB 1195 would go against that practice.

ASBSD Executive Director Wade Pogany, who led testimony in support of the plan, responded to Rep. Hunt by stressing that program is voluntary, and that parents have a choice to enroll their children in the program.

To avert what he called a “slippery slope” toward the establishment of pre-kindergarten standards, Rep. Hunt moved an amendment to strike provisions that would allow schools to charge for voluntary pre-k programs. The amendment failed, but garnered support from six lawmakers.

The committee added language, called an emergency clause, to make the bill effective as soon as the governor signs the bill. In order to pass with an emergency clause, the bill needs a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate.

After changing the bill, lawmakers endorsed the measure on a 9-5 vote.

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

Parents who opt to homeschool their children would be eligible for a $275 grant from the South Dakota Department of Education, according to legislation filed today in the state House of Representatives.

The measure, filed as HB 1215, appropriates $907,500 to create the 2012 South Dakota Alternative Instruction Funding Grant Program. To be eligible for the grant, a parent must have provided their school-age child alternative instruction for the 2011-12 school year. The proposal is only established for one year, and any unspent funds will revert to the state at the end of the 2013 fiscal year.

Rep. Brian Liss, R-Sioux Falls, and Sen. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, are prime sponsors of the legislation.

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

Parents wishing to enroll children in a neighboring school district would have to do so by a state-established enrollment deadline, according to legislation filed today in the South Dakota House of Representatives.

The measure, introduced as HB 1189, states that open enrollment requests can be accepted before the last Friday in September or the last Friday in January. If a request is granted outside of those dates, the transfer will occur at the next available deadline.

Currently, school boards are only allowed to deny open enrollment requests if the district doesn’t have the physical capacity or necessary programs to serve a student. Local administrators often have trouble placing a student, and deciphering how to award academic credit, when a student transfers in the middle of a semester.

Last November, school board members endorsed a resolution asking lawmakers to give districts the authority to establish dates by which open enrollment requests may be made. The position, which is part of ASBSD’s 2012 advocacy platform, seeks local authority to set the dates. House Bill 1189 establishes uniform dates for the entire state.

The proposal is sponsored by Rep. Brock Greenfield, R-Clark.

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

The school law world is buzzing after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision in a controversial case involving a law in Arizona that gives tax credits to individuals paying tuition at private religious schools.

In a divided 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the taxpayers couldn’t challenge government expenditures alleged to be unconstitutional. Plaintiffs attacked the law as a violation of the Establishment Clause, meaning they argued that the law amounted to the government sanction of religious belief.

In effect, the decision endorses Arizona’s $54 million tax credit program, which gives parents up to a $1,000 tax credit for making donations to “school tuition organizations.” According to the Arizona Republic, 93 percent of the tax credits when to parents of students who go to religious schools.

Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, delivered the Court’s opinion. Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayer, filed a dissenting opinion.

The Court’s rule came down to an interpretation tax credit programs. Plaintiffs contended that tax credits and government expenditures are the same. The Court rejected that argument, saying first that government expenditure and tax credits may have similar economic impact, but then drawing a line by ruling “tax credits and governmental expenditures do not both implicate individual taxpayers in sectarian activities.” The court ruled that the individual, and not state government, makes decisions to contribute to school tuition organizations.

Justice Elena Kagan authored the dissent, hammering the decision that she says creates a ““road map ... to any government that wishes to insulate its financing of religious activity from legal challenge.”

Check out NSBA’s Legal Clips review of the case.

It goes without saying that the ruling involves legal precedent that is much more complicated to review here. Having said that, the case will be viewed as a tremendous victory for voucher proponents and doubly important for those who aim to give tax breaks to parents of private school students.

It’s likely that the ruling will spur legislative attempts to establish similar programs. But that doesn’t mean that such a program would work in South Dakota.

Vouchers aren’t practical policy in South Dakota, mostly due to the state’s tax structure. Without an income tax, deductions would most likely have to come from property tax rebate. However, the amount of property taxes varies widely across the state, making it much more difficult to establish a standard value for a voucher or tax credit.

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

In the midst of a full-scale federal budget battle, Rep. Kristi Noem, R-South Dakota, voted with the majority to spend $100 million to reinstate a federal voucher program for D.C. Public Schools.

The bill, filed as H.R. 471, is officially titled the “Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act.” In addition to funding the D.C. voucher program, the measure provides an additional $200 million for the D.C. public schools.

Rep. Noem made headlines in August when she came out in opposition to a national voucher program. At the time, she said that the voucher program may be appropriate for D.C. public schools, but not for South Dakota, which drives school choice through an enrollment options program that allows any student to attend any of the state’s public schools.

The Obama Administration opposes federally funded vouchers, citing a review of the D.C. program that gave the program mixed reviews. Other studies (here, here, here) have come to similar conclusions, giving voucher critics some ammo against the program that some argue siphons money away from traditional public schools.

The news that Noem supported the D.C. voucher program isn’t surprising. In fact, it’s consistent with her on-the-record comments from the debate ASBSD co-hosted at the ASBSD and SASD Convention last August. ASBSD opposes national voucher programs, but hasn’t taken a position on the D.C. voucher effort (although the National School Boards Association has).

But, Open Forum is a little surprised that the U.S. House of Representatives wants to set aside $100 million for the program in light of the budget battle that rages on in Washington, D.C. The House has targeted a number of school programs for elimination or sever cuts, including Head Start early education programs. With no clear evidence that vouchers actually work, combined with the House’s mandate to cut spending, it seems like a contradiction to invest $100 million in bringing back the country’s only federally funded voucher program.

Thoughts?

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

Members of Senate Education voted 5-2 Tuesday to turn away legislation aimed at reducing per-student aid for students who attend school outside his or her resident district.

Senate Bill 85 proposes a change to the way open-enrolled students are funded. If a student open-enrolls to a district that receives the small school adjustment, the per-student allocation for that child would be based on the resident district’s fall enrollment.

Sen. Deb Peters, R-Hartford, tried to convince lawmakers that SB 85 would restore fairness to the formula and save taxpayers $1.1 million. She called on lawmakers to support the bill and to put a stop to schools receiving “bonus” money and to ensure students are “switching schools for the right reasons.”

Avon Superintendent Tom Culver and Elkton Superintendent Tony Simons lined up in opposition to the legislation. The two administrators stressed to lawmakers that parents and students are making a choice to attend a smaller school. They also detailed the financial hardship the measure would cause in their districts.

While several committee members credited Sen. Peters for making a strong case for the bill, lawmakers opted to kill the bill. Sen. Todd Schlekeway, R-Sioux Falls, told lawmakers that he hopes action on another bill regulating busing would work to accomplish the goals of Senate Bill 85.

The discussion on the bill frustrated Sen. Mark Johnston, R-Sioux Falls. He called for educators and lawmakers to work together to update the state’s struggling school finance system, which he said dates back to the 1950s. Budget battles have legislators “vapor-locked,” he said, which prevents real discussions about education funding reform from happening.

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

A new proposed law will give local school boards control over every school bus that drives through their district.

Under SB 77, any school district that wants to go into another school district to pick-up open-enrolled students must first get permission. The two districts will be required to enter into a transportation agreement, which must be renewed annually.

The measure is the session’s first piece of legislation stemming from one of last session’s most contentious policy issues – the transportation of open-enrolled students.

In 2010, the House passed a measure that would eliminate small school adjustment aid if a student enrolled from a larger to a smaller district. The measure, which was originally introduced to curb what some argued were unreasonable transportation practices, failed on a 6-1 vote in Senate Education. The legislation divided the education community, with representatives from large and small school districts lining-up on opposite sides to testify on the bill.

Sen. Shantel Krebs, R-Renner, and House Education Chair Tom Bruner, R-Nisland, are the two prime sponsors.

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

Lawmakers have yet to bridge the partisan divide on school funding issues, but the House of Representatives showed Monday that Republicans and Democrats can work together on tough policy issues.

Facing opposition from a group of lawmakers concerned the proposal would lead to racial segregation, a bipartisan contingent coalesced to pass legislation allowing the state to create a pilot charter school designed to boost academic outcomes for American Indian students. The plan, found in Senate Bill 63, moved to the governor’s desk on a 49-20 vote.

The legislation allows the state to authorize and oversee a publicly funded private school, provided South Dakota is chosen from the pool of 41 states vying for a federal Race to the Top grants. Authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the competition allows the U.S. Department of Education to hand out more than $4 billion to states that initiate education reforms.

On Monday, all the typical policy issues related to charter schools – privatization, school choice, funding – took a back seat to race.

Rep. Noel Hammiel, R-Mitchell, referenced landmark U.S Supreme Court cases Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Education during his five-minute speech against SB 63. He told lawmakers that starting a charter school for American Indian students would amount to racial segregation.

“I don’t know if transporting American Indian kids from around the state to a central location is a good idea,” he said. “I have some concerns about that.”

Rep. Hammiel also cited a recent UCLA study that found that charter school enrollment lacks diversity and is split along economic lines. He cautioned lawmakers against endorsing legislation that he said may make it tougher to bridge the state’s racial divides.

The bill’s supporters acknowledged sharing concerns about segregation. But rather than using race as a reason to vote against the measure, proponents instead focused on the what they said were glaring achievement gaps between American Indian students and their peers.

“What we are doing now for our children on the reservations is not working,” said Rep. Oran Sorensen, D-Dell Rapids. “Maybe we need to have the courage to go one step further.”

The law enabling the creation of the state-run school is contingent upon receiving the federal grant. According to the federal education department, South Dakota can receive up to $75 million if the state’s plan is chosen. South Dakota submitted its application last February, and the U.S. Department of Education will likely announce its first round of selections sometime this week.

South Dakota Education Secretary Tom Oster has openly acknowledged that he doesn’t believe the state will receive the funding.

If the state is awarded the grant, the funds will be used to establish a secondary school that gives enrollment priority to students from federally recognized American Indian tribes. The facility will offer instruction focused on science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The campus will also feature dormitory housing and offer enough classes to allow students to complete two years of college.

The bill now moves onto the governor, who has already given his blessing to the project.

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

Members of House Education endorsed a measure Wednesday that will reduce small school aid provided for students who open enroll from larger schools to smaller schools.

The proposal, filed as HB 1150, creates a new mechanism to calculate state aid for students who open enroll. If passed, per-student aid would be based on the fall enrollment of the larger of two schools involved in an open enrollment.

Lawmakers heard testimony on the bill nearly two weeks ago. During its initial hearing, the bill’s main sponsor, Rep. Deb Peters, R-Hartford, told committee members that the measure would save $1.3 million. She also testified the savings would be redistributed to all schools – a statement later refuted by Education Secretary Tom Oster.

With an eye on the potential savings in a tight budget year, lawmakers backed the bill on a 9-5 vote. The committee’s endorsement came following an amendment that would exempt sparse schools from funding restrictions the bill puts in place.

The measure now moves onto the House.

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

Members of House Education said Friday that they aren’t ready to adopt legislation to curtail busing of open enrolled students, but they also suggested they may not be far off from action if school districts don’t work out busing issues in the near future.

The commentary came during debate on HB 1219, a measure offered by Peggy Gibson, D-Huron, that would require schools to transport students to centrally located distribution points.

Rep. Gibson told legislators that school districts have confused and upset taxpayers by sending buses into neighboring districts to pick up students. In particular, elderly constituents in her district have questioned the need for additional education funding because they see buses from different districts passing each other on roadways.

Diana Miller, a lobbyist for a group of large schools, echoed Rep. Gibson’s concerns, telling lawmakers that the unprecedented budget shortfall – as indicated by the lack of increase proposed for education – requires lawmakers to look at “fresh, new ways to do things.” Passing the measure, she said, would save districts money.

The South Dakota Department of Education, the Sioux Falls School District and the South Dakota Coalition of Schools testified against the legislation.

Charlie Flowers, a lobbyist for small and mid-sized schools, asked lawmakers to defeat the measure and support local control. Districts that lose students to open enrollment “need to look at why you are losing these students,” he said.

Committee members nearly unanimously voted to kill the bill, but not without qualifications.

Lawmakers, including Rep. Oran Sorensen, D-Garretson, challenged big and small schools to eliminate animosity and begin working together on enrollment issues. He suggested that if schools can’t come to a compromise, the Legislature will have to act.

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

The Senate Education committee unanimously endorsed an amended SB 63 Thursday, paving the way for the state to make its application for federal Race to the Top funds.

Lawmakers stripped the provisions to allow local school boards to apply for charter schools, leaving only the portions that allow the State Board of Education to charter a single pilot school. As drafted, the state's chartering authority is conditional upon receiving the Race to the Top grant.

Education Secretary Tom Oster introduced the legislation, providing a brief overview of the state's plans to develop a residential secondary school offering instruction in grades 9-12 and two years of college. The school - which will focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics instruction - would give enrollment preference to American Indian students, but would be open to all students.

The secretary told lawmakers that the state has a economic and moral imperative to improve educational outcomes for South Dakota's American Indian students, who have historically not performed as well on state assessments and are less likely to graduate from high school or college.

Keith Moore, chief diversity officer for the University of South Dakota, and Stacy Phelps, a member of the State Board of Education and Indian education pioneer, joined Oster in pitching the legislation.

"It's going to be a school of hope, a school of promise," said Keith Moore, the state's former Indian Education director, after assuring lawmakers that the non-traditional residential school would not conjure up images of boarding schools that have strained relationships with the state's tribal entities.

Phelps said the school would be based on the successes of South Dakota’s GEAR UP initiative, a state Indian education initiative that has proven to improve high school graduation rates and dramatically improved the number of American Indian students who have completed college.

Legislators were impressed by the application and gave it their full support.

Sen. Bob Gray, R-Pierre, briefly summed up his endorsement of the legislation.

“This could be the most significant thing we do this session,” he said.

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

Consider our eyebrows raised.

Open Forum is watching Oklahoma's legislature as they debate a concept near and dear to our hearts – local school governance.  

For a quick read on the Sooner state's School District Empowerment program, click here or here, or get some more detail from our colleagues at the Oklahoma State School Boards Association(OSSBA).

If you're not so link-happy, here's the gist: up to 20 percent of the state's schools would be eligible for a pilot initiative that exempts the public schools from nearly every state education mandate currently sealed in Oklahoma law.

Essentially, the School District Empowerment program offers traditional public schools the same kind of deregulation that school choice enthusiasts fight to obtain for publicly funded but privately run charter schools. The legislation promises true local public school governance, which is why our friends at OSSBA are backing the effort.

Open Forum has often been curious why strong advocates of school choice have focused their efforts on charter schools. If charter-backers believe government mandates are barriers to student achievement, why not push for broad-based deregulation of public schools? At the very least, doesn't the creation of an entirely new system of publicly funded schools seem…redundant?

We admit – it's bothersome to think that our public education system has moved so far from local governance that state lawmakers have to consider legislation to “empower” local communities. But…with a country focused on education reform and President Obama pushing for additional charter schools, Open Forum thinks Oklahoma's effort deserves to be part of the debate.

Of course, like any education reform measure, the legislation has opposition. In this case, the fight against the legislation is being led by the state's two largest teacher unions, who are concerned that the legislation would, among other things, eliminate collective bargaining (read their take here and here).

So… what's the difference between regulated and unregulated public schools? Well, this chart goes a long way to explaining the legal differences. And, though the body of research is expanding, there's no definitive word on whether charter schools actually improve student achievement.

As always, the Forum is open.

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

Open Forum doesn't hide our affinity for public schools. We think it's hard to beat the accountability and responsiveness the public school environment promises, despite some calls for private sector solutions to public school woes.

That's why research coming out of Philly has earned our attention.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Johns Hopkins University has published research comparing student performance in the city's public schools to student performance in numerous privately run, publicly funded schools.

The public school system outlays more than $6 million a year to private companies, who manage more than 20 Philadelphia schools. It's regarded as the largest privatization experiment in the nation.

And, really… the story's lede says it all:

City schools under Philadelphia School District control outperformed those run by outside managers paid millions of dollars to run them, according to a study released today.

Read it all here.

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

Charter schools aren't a silver-bullet solution to meeting the needs of struggling students, members of House Education decided Monday.

Lawmakers killed HB 1295 on a 10-5 vote, citing problems with the structure of the legislation but verbally committing to explore the charter school issue further.

Supporters of the measure said enabling charter schools would provide alternative routes for struggling students, focusing specifically on charters as an avenue to improve outcomes for Native American students.

ASBSD opposed the legislation, telling lawmakers that the plan would allow for the creation of publicly funded private schools that would lack public oversight. Representatives from the Sioux Falls School District, Rapid City Area Schools and a lobbyist for 11 large schools also testified against the plan.

Despite turning the measure away, one lawmaker pledged to continue to investigate charter schools and the impact they could have on Native American students.

“Our reservation schools are failing our kids,” said Rep. Ryan Olson, R-Onida, before suggesting that the Legislature study the issue in the summer interim and bring forward recommendations on how to improve the legislation.

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

Lawmakers signaled reluctance Monday to change the state's open enrollment laws, killing a tandem of bills that legislators said would hinder student and parental choice.

A measure that would have barred districts from sending busses into neighboring districts to pick-up open-enrolled students was killed at the request of the sponsor.

Rep. Brock Greenfield, R-Clark, said he brought HB 1235 to stimulate discussion on the state's open enrollment policies. After hearing from school leaders, Rep. Greenfield felt the bussing issue no longer needed legislative attention.

The committee also dismissed HB 1236, a bill that would have prevented students from open-enrolling after the statewide enrollment count in September.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Greenfield, told lawmakers that, unlike the bussing issue, prohibiting mid-year transfers has some support among educators. He asked lawmakers to hold the bill so he could prepare amendments adding a second spring transfer deadline and a waiver process, but legislators didn't think that was necessary.

Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story