Open Forum takes a little break from news to offer up a tragically humorous anecdote from this morning's Argus Leader.

In a story on two bills aiming to tackle teacher pay, Argus reporter Terry Woster talked with Tea Area School District Superintendent Dean Jones.

An excerpt:

Tea Area Schools went looking for a science teacher this year.

They might as well have gone after a unicorn, the way Superintendent Dean Jones describes the search.

It's a sad state of affairs when recruiting science teachers has become so difficult. It's not just a salary issue, because there's a shortage of qualified teachers across the nation - particularly in math, science and special education.

It's been a long time since Open Forum sat through Econ class, but the way we remember it, when demand is high and supply is short, price tends to go up. And that's when salary becomes an issue.

And when salary is an issue, South Dakota is left... well... searching for unicorns.

Education Secretary Dr. Rick Melmer testified in opposition to the teacher recruitment bills heard by Senate Education yesterday. That's not unusual. Dr. Melmer, or someone from Gov. Rounds' administration, testifies against any bill that offers additional funding for K-12 education.

And, to the state's credit, the Department of Education is doing some great things to help retain teachers. A conference for new teachers, a teacher leadership conference - they're sound, proactive tactics that shows the state is taking steps to address the problem.

That said, saying that South Dakota will recruit teachers based on our quality of life or a low tax burden is, frankly, ignoring the problem. Last time Open Forum checked, new teachers can't pay off student loan debt with quality of life.

Open Forum agrees with Senator Cooper Garnos.

"Until all the groups can come together, including state government, the Governor, school districts and all these players - you know what, we're going to continue to struggle," Sen. Garnos said yesterday during a Senate Education meeting.

Precisely.

The bill would have allowed school districts to levy 40 cents-per-thousand to help pay for employee health benefits.

After emotional testimony from a legislator with a dyslexic child, a House Committee passed legislation that would add dyslexia to state administrative rules governing which students qualify for special education.

Rep. Keri Weeks, R-Sioux Falls, introduced HB 1291 as an avenue to ensure dyslexic students receive the attention they require in a school setting. She said experiences with her child, who now attends private school, left her questioning whether dyslexic students are underserved in public schools.

Dennis Champ, special education director for Pierre Public Schools, testified in opposition to the bill. He told committee members that districts are currently serving students with dyslexia and will continue to do so. Districts have all the tools they need to serve dyslexic students, Champ said.

That sentiment was echoed by Deb Barnett, a representative of the South Dakota Department of Education. She told committee members that the bill adds a category beyond what is in federal law that governs education of students with disabilities.

During committee questions, Rep. Weems was asked whether her daughter was placed in private school because the public schools could not meet her needs.

The question prompted another round of emotional testimony from Rep. Weems.

She said the private school was more accommodating and that her child went from reading below the third grade level to reading at the seventh grade level in six months once provided with private in-school tutoring.

HB 1291 passed 14-1.

Members of the House Education committee rejected legislation that would put a cap on school district pension funds, taking a stand that local communities have a better understanding of fund balance levels than legislators.

Rep. Deb Peters, R-Hartford, introduced HB 1316 after hearing Gov. Rounds criticize fund balances during his budget address last month. According to Rep. Peters, school districts are asking for more taxpayer dollars than actually needed.

"Just because the statue allows them to tax at the 30-cents-per-thousand, doesn't necessarily mean they need to levy is all the time," Rep. Peters said.

Continually, Rep. Peters criticized school districts for a lack of financial planning.

During committee discussion, Rep. Ryan Olson, R-Onida, asked members to defeat the bill and criticized legislative efforts to impede on the efforts of local school districts.

"This idea that we believe in local control - it's a political slogan that has no bearing at all [in the legislature]," Rep. Olson said. "Every year we have these bills - ‘Oh we believe in local control, but we're going to take it away from you.'"

Rep. Olson continued his commentary on local decision-making.

"We are not the only people that are accountable," he said. "We have school board members - I talk to my school board members, I talk to the superintendent. We look at these numbers. We're not the only ones accountable here."

"This belongs in the hands of the local people," Rep. Olson concluded.

The bill died on a 11-4 vote.

Editors Note: To Rep. Ryan Olson - AMEN!

The Senate Education dismissed a bill Tuesday that would have established a $35,000 minimum teacher salary by 2012 and provided a 3.5 percent annual increase in state aid to education to help pay for the change.

Sen. Cooper Garnos, R-Presho, introduced SB 169 as a way to make teacher salaries more competitive in the region. He told committee members that 80 percent of the state's population lives near the states borders, and being behind in teacher salaries makes it hard for districts to compete for teachers.

"I think we're falling behind," he said. "I really do."

It important, Sen. Garnos said, that the state helps put the best and brightest in the classroom. "I think there is a correlation between what you are paid and what [career field] you go into," Sen. Garnos said.

Dick Tieszen, a lobbyist for Associated School Boards of South Dakota, testified against the bill.

He told legislators that the South Dakota Alliance for Education appreciates that legislators are interested in improving teacher salaries, but the 3.5 percent increase wasn't enough to fund the change.

"Historically we know, when we look at what school districts have been doing, that [state aid] has been used for teacher salaries," Tieszen said.

Education Secretary Dr. Rick Melmer also opposed the bill, - not because the bill didn't provide enough funding, but because it contained too much funding.

He said in addition to the increase in the index factor, the legislature would be pressured to provide minimum increases to other areas of state government.

"I don't think the fiscal impact would end at $4 million, it would just begin there," Dr. Melmer said.

Melmer also worried that districts would shift money to teacher salaries rather at the expense of providing benefits.

Though legislators voted to kill the bill, lawmakers indicated that something needs to be done to address the nation's lowest teacher salaries.

"Until all the groups can come together, including state government, the Governor, school districts and all these players - you know what, we're going to continue to struggle," Sen. Garnos said.

Senate Education Chair Ed Olson told committee members that South Dakota needs to shift its attitude toward teacher salaries.

"Until the state truly realizes that [education is] and investment and not an expense, we will continue to try to do better than inflation, but if we're going to get into the market and stay in the market, we're going to have to get serious about it," Sen. Olson said.

If lawmakers in the House of Representatives have their way, school district capital outlay budgets will be capped by the same "3 percent or less" law that governs increases in general state aid to education.

Legislators endorsed the concept yesterday by passing HB 1006 to the House floor, and some lawmakers endorsed the concept again today during the House Taxation Committee's hearing on HB 1257.

Although the bill failed to make it out of committee - the committee was locked at a 7-7 tie - legislators who voted against this proposal indicated their opposition to HB 1257 was only because another bill that achieves similar results made it out of Monday's House state affairs committee.

Under HB 1257, revenue generated by district capital outlay funds would only be allowed increase a maximum of 3 percent each year - regardless of whether a school district is currently taxing the maximum allowed under law.

Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, said he offered the bill because legislators failed to provide the restriction on capital outlay in 1995 when revenue caps were placed on other local government entities.

"I think it's time to put a restriction on [capital outlay fund revenue]," Rep. Wick said. "It's necessary that we take care of our tax payers."

ASBSD Executive Director Wayne Lueders opposed the bill, telling members of the committee that the legislation would prevent districts from providing suitable learning environments and access to the latest technology.

Lueders also challenged the notion that the state has to provide protection for local property tax payers.

"School board members are always cautious of the taxies levied on their friends and neighbors in the communities they serve," Lueders said, citing statewide capital outlay levies that show nearly two-thirds of districts tax below the maximum allowed by law.

"Capital outlay levies are raised and lowered depending on the needs of the district," he said. "School boards will not ask for revenue they don't need."

During committee discussion, Rep. Ryan Olson, R-Onida, agreed with Lueders that districts manipulate capital outlay levies based on need. He asked committee members to defeat the bill, saying districts may "get caught in a trap" and not have enough ongoing revenues.

Assistant Majority Leader Joel Dykstra, R-Canton, said it was a clear mistake that capital outlay revenues were not capped in 1995, and that nobody would have guessed that the taxing authority would have gotten out of hand.

Rep. Dykstra, though, feels another bill - HB 1006 - provides is a better vehicle.

His loyalty to HB 1006 is likely linked to support for a productivity-based property tax reform measure - found in HB 1005 - that has the backing of the Republican leadership and Gov. Mike Rounds.

Likewise, support for HB 1257 may be linked to support for another property tax reform measure. Rep. Hal Wick, prime sponsor of the legislation, is part of a coalition that wants property taxes to be based on market values.

The committee, which couldn't arrive at a majority to kill or support the bill, referred the bill to House Education.

A bill that will offer dramatically reduced consolidation incentives to districts that merge passed the House of Representatives Monday, meaning the legislation will move on to the Senate.

ASBSD opposes HB 1051, and will continue to communicate the unintended consequences of the legislation.

To read Open Forum's prior coverage of this legislation, click here.

In their next move, the same committee served up a potentially crippling blow to school district capital outlay, special education and pension funds.

The House State Affairs Committee passed HB 1005 on a wide margin, despite opposition from county assessors and legislators that feel a market-value approach is a better option.

While the method of taxation is of little consequence to school districts, HB 1006, which must be passed along with HB 1005, will have significant impact on the amount of revenue districts collect for the capital outlay, special education and pension funds.

House Bill 1006 says that revenue from the three locally-controlled funds may only increase at 3 percent or the CPI, whichever is less.

Sen. Dave Knudson, R-Sioux Falls, introduced HB 1006 as a necessary component to any revision on the state's property tax system because it provides a safe harbor for districts that see decreases in valuation as a result of the change.

"If I lived in county where taxable valuation when up, this is just great - I'm in heaven because I have much more property to tax," Sen. Knudson said. "If I'm in a school district where the valuation has gone down, I'm in deep trouble."

While there is a clear need for some form of safe harbor, a revenue cap on capital outlay would be detrimental to school districts.

Open Forum's mailbox is full of comments from school business officials regarding proposed cap on school district funds.

"If you limit the amount of revenue received by our Capital Outlay budget, your students and teacher fall behind in their use and understanding of modern technology," said one business official.

The Legislature's two education committees will be moving quickly in the next two weeks to meet the legislative deadline, known as cross-over day, for bills to move out of house of origin.

The Senate will hear this session's first minimum teacher salary bill on Tuesday. Senate Bill 169 requires districts to adopt a $35,000 minimum teacher salary by 2012, and provides a guaranteed 3.5 percent annual increase in the per-student allocation to fund the shift.

The full Senate Education Calendar includes:

• SB 169 : Minimum teacher salary at $35,000 by 2012, 3.5 percent index factor
• SB 179 : Democratic Party funding proposal adding more than $100 million to K-12 education.
• SB 181 :Create the South Dakota secondary teachers tuition reimbursement and loan forgiveness program.

On the House side, the education committee has calendared six bills, including one that would limit the maximum balance in a school district's pension fund. The slate in House Education is:

• HB 1164 : Allows districts to use the general fund to purchase or lease computer hardware or software.
• HB 1312 : Change the South Dakota virtual high school to the South Dakota virtual school.
• HB 1316 : Establish a maximum balance for school district pension funds.
• HB 1308 : Require the Board of Education to revise the alternative certification standards for career and technical education teachers.
• HB 1303 : Require the South Dakota State Library to deliver services and materials to residents in remote areas of the state, and to deliver those services and materials to students and low-income residents free of charge.
• HB 1291 : Allow students who have dyslexia to receive special education or special education and related services.

Legislation that would dramatically reduce consolidation incentives was deferred by the House of Representatives Friday and may be considered as early as Monday.

House Bill 1051 failed on the House floor the first time because it did not earn a two-thirds majority - a necessary requirement because the legislation contained an emergency clause, meaning it would take effect as soon as the bill was signed by Gov. Rounds.

The proposed legislation was amended to remove the emergency clause, however, meaning the legislation now has enough support to pass.

In its current form, HB 1051 offers reduced consolidation incentives to all districts merging after July 1, 2007, which would impact several districts that have already agreed to a consolidation plan, and, in some cases, districts that have already held a public vote to consolidate.

That means districts that expected to receive consolidation incentives under existing law will receive less than planned.

Currently, districts involved in reorganizations receive incentive money for three years after reorganization. Incentives are paid out based on the number of students in a district.

Under House Bill 1051, however, consolidation incentives will only apply to districts receiving students as a result of the consolidation. The legislation also changes current law to say that districts will receive incentive money only for the number of students received as a result of a consolidation.

While the legislation does increase the per-student value of the incentive, the net effect of the change results in a significant reduction in the total incentive offered by the state.

To illustrate the change, consider a consolidation between District A, with a fall enrollment of 300 students, and District B, which serves 90 students.

Under the current law, the new district would receive consolidation incentives based on 390 students - for a total three-year incentive of $468,000. If HB 1051 passes, that incentive drops to $162,000.

According to ASBSD Assistant Executive Director Hank Kosters, who works closely with districts going through consolidation, the change would have a chilling effect on consolidation negotiations between districts, particularly if the larger district is in an opt-out or if there has been an agreement to maintain an attendance center in the smaller district.

"Incentive money would take the place of the opt-out or offset the costs of keeping an attendance center," Kosters said. "Without that incentive, some districts may not even come to the table to discuss consolidation."

Kosters added that the proposal is particularly unfair to those districts that have reached an agreement under current law.

"Those districts made some tough decisions and acted in good faith based on existing law," Kosters said. "It's not fair to change the rules in the bottom of the ninth inning."

Senate Heath and Human Services delayed public testimony on SB 130 Friday.

The bill would give school boards new taxing authority by allwing allows districts to levy 40 cents per thousand to help pay for health insurance benefits for employees.

A House committee killed a bill Friday that would have changed the way the state determines annual increases to education funding.

Under HB 1172, annual increases would be calculated using a weighted combination of two inflationary factors. Fifteen percent of the index will be based on the CPI-W, with the remaining 85 percent hinging on growth in the employment cost index for elementary and secondary education.

The employment cost index, or ECI for short, measures the annual change in the cost of hiring teachers in public school districts.

House Majority Leader Rep. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, asked committee members to reject the measure. Funding for K-12 education is the only area in state government that has mandatory minimum increase and past legislatures have provided additional money in excess of the statutory requirement.

Rep. Deb Peters, R-Hartford, the bill's prime sponsor, noted that the legislature has given additional one-time funds outside the formula, but also pointed out that it's difficult for district's to put that money into teacher salaries.

During her introduction of the bill, Rep. Peters, an accountant by trade, told committee members that the definition of the index factor has never made sense to her.

Rep. Joni Cutler, R-Sioux Falls, agreed.

"We should use the right numbers," said Rep. Cutler. "This gives us the right starting point in future years."

Legislative committees will weigh in on two pieces of proposed legislation Friday morning that could have a lasting impact on school finance in South Dakota.

Senate Heath and Human Services will take public testimony on SB 130, a bill that will give school boards new taxing authority. The legislation allows districts to levy 40 cents per thousand to help pay for health insurance benefits for employees.

Committee testimony will begin at 10:00 a.m.

At the same time, House State Affairs will consider HB 1172, a measure that would revise the index factor used to calculate annual increases in state aid to education.

Currently, the index factor is defined as the annual change in the CPI-W, an inflationary factor that measures the change in price of consumer goods commonly used to adjust social security benefits.

Under HB 1172, annual increases would be calculated using a weighted combination of two inflationary factors. Fifteen percent of the index will be based on the CPI-W, with the remaining 85 percent hinging on growth in the employment cost index for elementary and secondary education.

The employment cost index, or ECI for short, measures the annual change in the cost of hiring teachers in public school districts.

While the index is a much more representative way of calculating annual increases, the impact of the change is marginalized because the index factor would still be capped at 3 percent.

Check back with Open Forum this afternoon to read how each bill fared in committee.

The Legislature suspended the rules to introduce HB 1317, legislation that requires the department of education to develop a searchable web site containing school district expenditure data.

It's a good idea. Making data available is always a good idea.

But Open Forum has to give the South Dakota Department of Education credit - the bill just dropped, and they ALREADY have the web site up. Talk about responsive government!

Go check it out over at the Department of Education's web site.

Legislators have introduced five separate pieces of legislation in an apparent attempt to provide higher salaries for the state's K-12 teachers.

Senate Bill 187, introduced by Senate Majority Leader Dave Knudson, R-Sioux Falls, provides a 4.25 percent increase in the per-student allocation for FY2009.

The legislation, which is the product of Sioux Falls-based business-education partnership, requires that districts certify that teacher salaries and benefits increase by 4.25 percent next year. The bill also says districts must spend an additional $79.25 per-student on teacher salaries and benefits above what the district spent this year.

In contrast to SB 187's targeted approach, three bills seek to establish a minimum teacher salary.

House Bill 1268 mandates that districts adopt a $30,000 minimum teacher salary by 2013. To fund the minimum salary requirement, districts would be able to use $33 per-student in Teacher Compensation Assistance Program funds made available last year.

While the legislation does make additional resources available, the T-Cap program provides just $4 million in additional funds and is scheduled to sunset in 2012.

Meeting the mandates of HB 1268 would prove difficult for districts - but not nearly as challenging as fulfilling the mandates set forth in HB 1214. The legislation, which also targets a $30,000 minimum salary, provides no additional funding and requires districts to adopt a compliant salary schedule by 2010.

Senate Bill 169, the last of three bills targeting a minimum salary, mandates that schools must offer a $35,000 minimum teacher salary by 2012. To fund the phase-in of the minimum teacher salary, the legislation guarantees an annual 3.5 percent increase in per-student funding.

A final bill, HB 1262, is a "shell bill" - meaning that it contains little content at this point, but may be a placeholder for legislation after the filing deadline. Currently, this bill simply states that teacher salaries will be enhanced.

Sen. Kenneth McNenny, R-Sturgis, who voted against SB 26 in committee, was the only legislator to speak against the bill during floor debate.

"Somewhere down the line, it's going to cost money," Sen. McNenny said. "We're not funding our current programs - especially our teachers - at the levels we would like. Why are we embarking on a new program when we have serious problems right now?"

During the Senate floor debate, proponents of SB 26 continued to address concerns that the legislation seeks to mandate pre-k for all students.

"I think a lot of us are looking for boogeymen in here," said Senate Education Chair Ed Olson, R-Mitchell. "And again, it's a straight-up vote on establishing standards - it doesn't do anything else other than that."

Members of House Education voted down legislation Tuesday morning that would have provided a sweeping voter recall provision for school board members.

The committee sent HB 1150 to the 36th Legislative Day on a 11-4 vote, effectively killing the measure.

Opponents to HB 1150 argued that the legislation would institute a broad voter recall mechanism not extended to other elected officials in the state.

ASBSD, who joined representatives from the School Administrators of South Dakota, the Sioux Falls School District and the South Dakota Coalition of Schools to testify against the bill, asked committee members to consider unintended consequences of the recall legislation as it was proposed.

"School boards are also in a unique position because districts must collectively bargain with school employees," said ASBSD Executive Director Wayne Lueders. "Given the low numbers required to institute recall as provided in HB 1150, it is possible for collective bargaining to end in recall, rather than an agreement between two parties."

Open Forum will have more on the issue later today.

Read ASBSD's full testimony by clicking here.

Members of the House Education committee narrowly killed a bill Tuesday that would reverse last year's legislation that froze the small school factor at 2006 values.

House Bill 1147 would have based the small school adjustment on the per-student allocation, rather than on a fixed dollar amount that does not grow with inflation.

Rep. Al Norvstrup, R-Aberdeen, told committee members that small schools will face even greater financial difficulties if small school funding remains frozen.

"The question isn't whether small schools would have a problem with formula, it's when they will have a problem," said Rep. Norvstrup, who later said that revenues need to inflate along with expenses.

Rep. Mike Buckingham, R-Rapid City, asked committee members to kill the bill. He told committee members that the change was part of sweeping changes enacted last year, and requested that committee members allow policy decisions to work before revisiting them.

"We need the opportunity to let the changes have some impact," Rep. Buckingham said.

Seven members of House Education agreed with Rep. Buckingham, voting to defer the bill to the 36^th Legislative Day on a 8-7 vote.

During committee discussion, Rep. Norvstrup said the change had the support of the majority of the House of Representatives, possibly indicating that, though defeated today, the concept may be taken up for consideration by the full body.

ASBSD supported HB 1147, referencing a ASBSD resolution that calls for inflationary increases in categorical funding.

ASBSD sought sponsors for the legislation as a mechanism to allow local boards to provide better educational opportunities for high school students. As proposed, SB 125 districts would retain responsibility for all students in a system, but would work out tuition arrangements to send whole grades to neighboring districts.

Education Secretary Dr. Rick Melmer opposed the legislation, saying that it would lead to the creation of elementary school districts and would allow communities to create tax havens.

Committee members were sold on Dr. Melmer's interpretation of the bill, and killed the measure on a 6-0 vote.

Check back with Open Forum for more on the issue.

Lawmakers are off today, which means we're on a temporary blog break. We'll be posting updates to some previous stories and adding to the Bill Tracker, but there's no news today.

And sometimes, friends, no news is good news.

House Education committee members on Thursday endorsed a significant change to the amount of consolidation incentives districts can receive for reorganization.

Currently, districts involved in reorganizations receive incentive money for three years after reorganization. Incentives are paid out based on the number of students in a district.

Under House Bill 1051, however, consolidation incentives will only apply to districts receiving students as a result of the consolidation. The legislation also changes current law to allow districts to receive incentive money only for the number of students received as a result of consolidation.

While the change will result in a significant reduction in the total amount of consolidation incentives offered by the state, the legislation does increase consolidation incentives to $900, $600 and $300 per-student for three years after consolidation occurs.

Education Secretary Dr. Rick Melmer, who introduced the bill, told committee members that the law needed to be changed to lower the price tag for consolidations.

Melmer used consolidation discussions involving the Carthage School District to illustrate a practice he said was not in keeping with the spirit of the law.

Because Carthage is reorganizing with 5 districts, the state would need to distribute more than $1.2 million in consolidation incentives. Divide that by the number of students in Carthage, Melmer told the committee, and that means the state will pay nearly $100,000 per student when Carthage reorganizes.

ASBSD Assistant Executive Director Hank Kosters, who testified against the bill, said Melmer's calculations were unfair. "The divisor should not be the 12 students, it should be the sum of all the students in the districts involved," Koster said.

Kosters, who works very closely with schools going through reorganization, asked the committee to leave existing laws as they are to give school boards can create plans based on a consistent target.

Committee members weren't convinced.

"To use this system, and to take as small as 12 or 20 kids and gain $1.2 million - I mean, that's a problem," said Keri Weeks, R-Sioux Falls. "I really hope this message gets back to those individual school board members because I just can't believe it."

Rep. Tom Hackl, R-Mobridge, voted against the bill. He didn't fault board members for working within the laws.

"I don't begrudge anybody for finding out our laws and actually taking advantage of them," Rep. Hackl said. "It's quite intuitive. I can live with that."

House Bill 1051 will go before the full House. Because it contains an emergency clause, it requires a 2/3 vote to pass.

The House Education committee on Thursday killed a measure to raise the requirements needed to qualify for growing enrollment aid, but legislators pledged to reexamine the issue later in the session.

Currently, districts with a 5 percent or 25-student increase in enrollment qualify for growing enrollment dollars. House Bill 1048, introduced on behalf of Gov. Rounds, sought to change the growth level to a 10 percent increase in growth.

Opponents of the legislation, including ASBSD Executive Director Wayne Lueders, asked legislators to resist making a policy change so quickly after enacting the change.

"While last year's policy fell short of delivering full funding for all students currently educated in South Dakota's growing districts, it did provide a measure of timeliness and represented a significant step forward." Lueders told the committee. "Last year, we moved one step closer to providing on-time funding for the students served by our districts. If you pass this bill, our school finance system will take a step backward."

Education Secretary Dr. Melmer, who introduced the bill on behalf of Gov. Rounds, countered the opponents concerns.

"It's not going to be any easier in four our five years to make a decision about the increasing enrollment dollars," Melmer said.

The fate of the qualification requirements is still uncertain. Committee members did not offer sustentative commentary on the issue, choosing focusing more on a Department of Education spreadsheet that pointed out that a handful of districts qualified for both increasing and decreasing enrollment this year.

That may be corrected later in the session, legislators said, as the discussion relating to growth aid continues.

To read ASBSD's full testimony on HB 1048, click here.

Senate Education gave the green light to legislation that would allow the state to develop content and accreditation standards for pre-kindergarten programming, passing the measure onto the full Senate on a 6-1 vote.

ASBSD Executive Director Wayne Lueders testified in favor of SB 26, joining a host of education advocates and business leaders that lined up in support of the proposal.

At November's Delegate Assembly, school board members targeted voluntary content and accreditation standards as a priority for the legislative session. The concept is also an integral part of Gov. Rounds' 2010 Education Initiative.

ASBSD will have more on this topic later today.

Senate Education will consider SB 26, a bill that will give the state power to author accreditation and content standards for pre-k programming. The committee - and the full Senate - endorsed the concept last year, but the measure was narrowly defeated in House Education.

The ASBSD Delegate Assembly tagged the establishment of pre-k standards as a priority for this legislative session, so ASBSD will be on hand to testify in support of SB 26.

On the House side, the education committee will consider HB 1048, legislation that seeks limit the number of districts that receive growing enrollment funds. The legislature approved sending the additional aid last year, but Gov. Rounds announced in his budget presentation that he would ask legislators to increase the requirements to qualify for the funds.

Education committees in both the House and Senate are making short work of clean-up legislation this week, considering mostly state agency-sponsored legislation.

In between deciding on these relatively low-profile bills, committee members are listening to program briefings from the Department of Education.

On Tuesday, the House gave the green light to the following pieces of legislation:

• HB 1045 (14-0 vote)
• HB 1050 (14-0 vote)
• HB 1046 (10-3)
• HB 1047 (11-2)

On the Senate side, the committee advanced the following pieces of legislation:

• SB 21 (6-0)
• SB 10 (6-0)

House Education Chair Phyllis Heineman, R-Sioux Falls, told committee members Tuesday that the legislators need to review the state's commitment to districts serving sparsely populated areas, challenging the need to back-fill funding promised to under the current formula.

Rep. Heineman's comments came during a public hearing on HB 1046, legislation that provides $197,000 to fully fund sparsity payments for the current year.

The problem, according to Rep. Heineman, is that the amount appropriated the past two years - $1.5 million in FY07 and $1.8 million in FY08 - was intended to be pro-rated based on districts that qualified for the aid. Yet, each of the past two years the legislature has considered an emergency appropriation to provide additional dollars above what was appropriated.

"I think at some point in time we do have to have the policy discussion: Are we going to continue to back-fill?" Heineman asked.

Rep. Mike Buckingham, R-Rapid City, told committee members that he anticipated the need to add to each year's appropriation.

"We knew all along that this was going to be about a $2 million dollar bill, depending on how you draft the language," said Rep. Buckingham, one of the original advocates for the additional aid for districts serving sparsely populated areas.

On a 10-3 vote, education committee members referred the bill to appropriations, where Heineman expects the debate over the need to backfill will continue.

On a convincing 25-10 vote, the South Dakota Senate tabled a measure Tuesday that would have forced school district consolidation without the approval of voters.

Though tabled with a strong majority, Senate Bill 23 is not dead. The bill can be removed from the table with a majority vote of the body.

Open Forum will have details shortly.

Taking a break Open Forum's coverage of the Legislature, we'd like to take time to offer our thanks to South Dakota's school board members.

Gov. Rounds has proclaimed this week South Dakota School Board Recognition Week. It's a time when all South Dakotans can take a minute to recognize the contributions our locally elected school board members make to our education systems.

School board work is sometimes referred to as "thankless work." We don't think that's entirely accurate. Being on a school board means making the work the reward. Sure, not many people take time to say "thank you" - but, from the stories relayed to Open Forum, the "thanks" come from watching students progress through the system.

For the hours you donate to your community; for the dedication you show for the children of South Dakota - Open Forum sends out a big "thank you" to board members during School Board Recognition Week.

The Senate has deferred action on SB 23, legislation that would grant the state authority to close small schools without the consent of voters.

According to Senate Majority Leader Dave Knudson, action was deferred to potentially draft amendments to the legislation.

The Senate will address the issue on Tuesday.

We're a day away from the drop-dead filing date, so Open Forum doesn't have the entire lexicon of bills to draw from ... but that doesn't stop us from doing a little head-scratching when it comes to some of the bills already filed.

And HB 1076 has Open Forum puzzled.

This one comes to use from the Bureau of Finance and Management. Open Forum hasn't had the opportunity to chat with the state budget folks to determine the intent of HB 1076. That said, our eyebrows raised when we read that the state wants to give - then immediately take away - approximately $8.5 million in state aid.

The bill, which will be heard in appropriations and not in the education committee, creates a pool of money the state can use to pay for technology in schools and to administer various state assessments. The difference, as those versed on the inner-workings of our school finance system know, is that state aid has traditionally been the mechanism to deliver discretionary aid to school districts. This legislation funnels state aid money back to the state.

It does so in a rather curious way, though, by first adding $71.46 per-student to the state aid formula then saying that the funds will be retained by the Department of Education.

As we noted before, we don't now the intent of this legislation - it hasn't even been scheduled for a hearing yet. But, it does appear to be a slight of hand, allowing the state to count money currently being spent on technology and assessment as state aid.

What say you? Is this a fair way to do things? Or is the Bureau of Finance and Management just looking for a way to make the state's support of K-12 appear stronger?

Leave a comment - we've taken down the pesky registration process, and you're free to add your insight.

In case you didn't catch it, the leadership from both political parities duked it out last night on South Dakota Public Broadcasting's "South Dakota Focus".

Despite having a full agenda of issues the leadership could have discussed, the lion's share of the debate focused on education funding.

Open Forum will have more on the issue over the weekend, but you should definately check it out for yourself. SDPB will likely have their archive updated soon.

Democratic state lawmakers will roll out a plan next week to substantially increase funding for K-12 education, party leaders announced Tuesday.

According to the Rapid City Journal, the minority party wants the state to change it's philosophy with respect to funding K-12 schools.

From the Journal:

Democrats would do that in part by using more interest from an education trust fund -- a measure the governor adamantly opposes. The Democratic minority lost a battle last year over a similar proposal to use money from state trust-fund interest.

... and ...

The fund is now worth $440 million. It earned 6.8 percent interest last year.

Heidepriem said a simple majority of the Legislature could direct that more of the interest could be used to help fund schools.

That extra accumulated interest totals about $87.7 million, Heidepriem said.

Coincidentally, the percentage of the total state budget spent on aid to K-12 schools has decreased by 8 percent since 1998, from 39 percent to 31 percent. Schools would have received $90 million more aid if the 39 percent level had been maintained, Heidepriem said. That is just slightly more than the accumulated interest on the trust fund.

"This is a reflection of a change in priorities in South Dakota away from K through 12 that we really feel the need to address," Heidepriem said.

Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce legislation next week as a part of omnibus education bill that funds public education in South Dakota from Pre-K to PhD.

According to the Argus Leader, the majority party is interested in providing additional K-12 funding.

From the Argus:

The education agenda includes a commitment made last year to use $9 million from tobacco taxes for schools. Equal amounts also would be directed, as they were last year, to property-tax relief and Medicaid funding. Besides that, the party says it supports increasing state aid to schools by more than the rate of inflation, the standard set in law. The additional money should go to teacher pay and improving education.

It's been widely reported that Senate Majority Leader Dave Knudson, R-Sioux Falls, will offer legislation to lift Gov. Rounds' 2.5 percent increase to 4.25 percent. Business leaders across the state also support the plan.

While actual legislation won't be filed until next week, expect to see strings attached that stipulate

Despite laying out a common agenda, how each chamber works toward the shared goals remains unclear. Last year, the House and Senate took very different approaches to funding K-12. The Senate offered a 4.3 minimum increase extending into the future. House Republicans countered with a more conservative 1.7 percent, one-year bump.

We'll find out more next week.

Open Forum covered the issue, along with ASBSD's testimony, on Thursday. For more information, read the Associated Press story from the Mitchell Daily Republic (subscription required).

Open Forum thinks its never to early in the session to tell your legislators how you feel on education issues. E-mail your Senators through the state's LRC website by clicking here. Retrieve phone numbers and address information for your senators from the LRC's member page by clicking here.

Except for the sure-to-be controversial mandatory consolidation law (SB 23), Senate Education made short work of several clean up bills Thursday and offered unanimous support for appropriating money for consolidation incentives for school districts.

For those interested, here's a list of clean-ups and appropriations tackled by Senate Ed Thursday:

SB 22 : Districts consolidating as of July 1, 2007, receive old incentives.

SB 24 : Funds consolidation incentives for next year.

SB 25 : Repeals reference to the Black Hills Forest High School.

SB 27 : Repeals school food service inspection requirements.

The legislation, which was introduced by the Department of Education, allows the South Dakota State Board of Education to "prepare and implement a plan for the district to dissolve and attach to another school district or districts" if a district's enrollment falls below the minimum district size.

The proposed law, filed as SB 23, gives DOE the final word on reorganizations and side-steps the requirement that all reorganizations must be approved by the Department of Education.

The law, filed as SB 23, offers "an enforceable remedy in the effect that the plan is not implemented under the time frames in law," said Department of Education representative Darla Mayer.

ASBSD Executive Director Wayne Lueders stood in opposition to the bill, asking members of the Senate Education committee to reject the idea that removes a community's "right to vote on the fate of the their school district that they support with their tax dollars."

"By giving the state the power to prepare and implement a plan, you are denying local citizens the entitlement granted under current law," Lueders said.

Lueders also expressed concern that the legislature would be firmly entrenching a mechanism to force consolidation on broader scale. "Today, that may affect nine districts with enrollments below 100," he said. "With efforts already underway to increase the minimum district size to 200 or 300, your decision today could extend forced consolidation to dozens more school districts."

Lueders was joined in opposition by Jim Hutmacher, a lobbyist for the states smallest schools.

Shortly after testimony, the committee passed SB 23 on a 4-3, party-line vote. The bill will likely be up for consideration within the next two legislative days.

To read ASBSD's full testimony, click here.

Senate Education gets off to a quick start today, filling their calendar with a host of pre-filed bills.

Bills moving this early typically offer minor changes to law - but that's not the case this year. Senate Ed is scheduled to consider SB 23, a bill that will force consolidation in small school districts and remove power from voters to approve consolidation plans.

ASBSD will offer testimony, and we'll keep you posted.

Here's Senate Ed's schedule for this morning:

SB 22 : Revise certain provisions related to the payment of additional funds to consolidated school districts and to declare an emergency.

SB 23 : Revise certain provisions related to the required reorganization of school districts with low enrollment.

SB 24 : Make an appropriation to reimburse certain school districts for consolidation incentives.

SB 25 : Repeal certain provisions regarding the calculation of state aid to education.

SB 27 : Repeal the state requirement for inspection of school food service programs.

ASBSD released this statement following Gov. Rounds' state-of-the-state address.

We're just a few hours away from the start of the 2008 Legislative Session. Open Forum will launch our comprehensive coverage of education issues starting with Gov. Rounds' budget address today.

ASBSD staff are already working to get the ASBSD Bill Tracker up and running. We're adding the handful of bills already filed, and we'll continue to update the powerful advocacy tool as session moves along.

Keep in mind, the ASBSD Bill Tracker not only lets you know which bills are of interest to the education community, but offers links to ASBSD anlaysis and testimony. You'll also be able to see how your legislators voted on all bills tracked in the system.