The South Dakota Senate passed legislation that will advance the state's interest in pre-kindergarten education - a move that supporters say will establish a framework to better define the need and desire to expand access of voluntary pre-k programs to economically disadvantaged students.

Senators approved SB 191 on a 20-15 vote after trading spirited arguments encompassing a range of philosophical policy positions that has made the pre-k discussion one of this year's most interesting legislative debates.

According to the legislation, pre-k providers aren't required to adhere to any set of state pre-k standards, but they have the option to seek certification based on “evidence-based quality benchmarks.”

Though the legislation mentions state-funded pre-k programs, it doesn't contain an appropriation. The measure does clarify that any future state-funded pre-k programs could only serve students from families whose household income is at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level.

The bill also contains other safeguards intended to mitigate concerns of voluntary pre-k opponents, including a provision that no child may be required to attend pre-k. The legislation also makes it clear the communities – not school districts – will drive any expansion in pre-k access at the local level.

The merits of pre-kindergarten education

Lawmakers traded talking points, sharply disagreeing about the impact pre-k education has on student achievement.

Leading pre-k advocate Sen. Tom Dempster, R-Sioux Falls, relied heavily on a compilation of research from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve, arguing that economically disadvantaged students attending pre-k are less likely to fall behind, less likely to need special education or remedial services, and are more likely to graduate from high school.

Sen. Dempster also referred to gains made by pre-k students currently served by a pilot program launched two years ago in Sioux Falls, which he said has led to “huge increases in the kids' results.”

Lawmakers from Lead, Pine Ridge and Rapid City recalled pre-k success in their respective communities, urging their fellow Senators to support the bill.

Sen. Jeff Haverly, R-Rapid City, who owns a daycare business in and acknowledged being “involved in the industry,” questioned the academic benefits of pre-k programs.

He criticized prominent pre-k research, saying it was based on an academic environment that isn't easily duplicated. Gains experienced in pre-k are demonstrated to fade-out later in a student's academic life, he said.

Fighting over funding

Even though the bill doesn't contain an appropriation, critics of the legislation waged arguments against the measure they said will require state funds in the future.

Even the suggestion that the state would fund pre-k programs is troublesome, according to Sen. Haverly, who has been quoted as saying that the program would cost the state as much as $50 million annually.

“We as legislators already have a problem funding K-12 education,” Sen. Haverly said, adding that he believes most Senators would agree that local school districts aren't sufficiently funded.

“We should not strap future legislators with the decision to fund community programs, especially in these tough economic times,” he argued.

Pre-k advocates rejected those concerns, saying instead that the bill is structured to provide lawmakers with the information and data needed to make a decision about funding. Without the legislation, the state officials don't have the authority to develop a structure for high-quality pre-k program – an element supporters said is needed to empower communities to plan local pre-k programs.

Even if the Legislature does decide to fund pre-k programs in the future, Sen. Dempster maintained that the money would be a wise investment.

Taking on poverty

Supporters of the plan locked onto to the legislation's requirement to target pre-k services to children from households that are at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level.

Sen. Jim Bradford, R-Pine Ridge, asked lawmakers to consider the impact the legislation could have on the state's Native American students – a sub-group of students who perform far below their peers on state achievement tests.

“Sad to say, being poor is part of that,” Bradford said, referring to the academic struggles of Native American children. “Is it wrong to invest in them just because they're poor?”

Lawmakers turned to statistics to create urgency for the legislation, saying the number of single mothers and the high percentage of households with two-parent income earners suggest that families may not be able to afford high quality pre-k programs.

Waiting lists to access the federally funded early childhood education programs continue to balloon, proponents argued, meaning a need is not being met. The state's role in filling that gap would provide targeted assistance to students who are already at-risk of arriving to kindergarten behind their peers.

The proper role of government

Pre-k opponents raised fears of future mandatory participation and suggested that measure amounts to “nanny-state” legislation.

Sen. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, assailed the legislation, calling it another attempt to take away responsibility from parents.

“Every time we in state government assume another responsibility, and take it out of the home, there are responsible parents in this state that are more than happy to turn over their obligation to the state,” Sen. Rhoden said.

To further his point, Sen. Rhoden used an example from his time serving on the Meade School Board. He told his fellow Senators that once the school offered a breakfast plan to provide a morning meal for students who wouldn't get one, parents in the community deferred to the district to provide that meal.

“We end up with another government program that's mandated,” said Sen. Rhoden.

Sen. Stan Adelstein, R-Rapid City, said he wasn't concerned about a government mandate and that the legislation wouldn't take over for parents. If pre-k programs are created, they will only to serve those children whose parents aren't currently providing their children the opportunity.

“Are we willing to throw away children and their opportunity in this state and in this nation?” asked Sen. Adelstein.

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

The House of Representatives' vote to transfer revenue from voter-initiated tax increase away from a fund earmarked for K-12 education has some lawmakers suggesting that history is repeating itself.

Lawmakers approved HB 1252 on a 43-26 vote Tuesday. The measure, proposed by Gov. Rounds, eliminates the Education Enhancement Tobacco Tax Fund, a special account established in 2007 following passage of an initiated measure that raised per-pack taxes on cigarettes by $1.

During the 2007 Legislative session, legislators diverted $9 million of the increased tobacco tax revenue to the education fund to pay for the Teacher Compensation Assistance Program, Education Service Agencies and $1.5 million in career and technical education grants.

Rep. Val Rausch, R-Big Stone City, said the three programs were “very much appreciated, very much used and very much liked.” Lawmakers were smart to earmark the money two years ago, he said. “But that's when we had revenue,” Rep. Rausch added.

The programs were recently created, which targets them as the first to be cut, Rausch told lawmakers. He also said approving the measure didn't prevent legislators from providing funding for the three K-12 initiatives in the state's general appropriations bill.

Rep. Oran Sorenson, D-Garretson, opposed the measure, telling lawmakers that eliminating the fund will cause confusion. Citizens in his district still question why video lottery dollars aren't being used for K-12 education, he said, suggesting passing the revenue through to the general fund goes against the intent of the voter-initiated tax that was sold as a way to help fund public education.

During the measure's first hearing in front of the House State Affairs Committee, members of the House Republican leadership said “the money would be there” to continue the three programs.

Members of Gov. Rounds' administration will continue to push for the cuts.

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

Comments (1) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

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

The House of Representatives has approved a change in the index factor that would guarantee per-student increases of between 3 and 4 percent annually.

Lawmakers voted 41-29 in favor of HB 1254 Tuesday, although there's reason to believe that many lawmakers who voted for the plan may not support it in the future.

House Chair Rep. Ed McLaughlin, R-Rapid City, asked lawmakers to approve the measure so the House would have a vehicle to negotiate with the Senate. The bill may be changed later in the process, he said.

If passed by the Senate, HB 1254 would offer per-student funding increases of 3.9 percent in FY10 and 3 percent in FY11. The totals represent significantly higher increases than Gov. Rounds has proposed this year, and would provide a minimum of 3 percent in the future.

The passage of the legislation provides somewhat of a twist in a year when Gov. Rounds has asked for significant cuts in K-12 programs and services. Bills to redefine the index factor and to provide higher increases to K-12 education have died on the House floor many times.

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

Lawmakers strongly endorsed legislation Wednesday to give local school districts additional temporary flexibility to spend capital outlay dollars.

Members of House Education voted 11-4 in favor of SB 91, a measure that will allow school districts the option to spend up to 45 percent of capital outlay revenue to pay for property insurance, casualty insurance, fuel, utilities, energy cots and contract bus services.

Before approving the bill, lawmakers limited the flexibility to three years, rather than the five originally included in the legislation.

Committee members also scratched what became a controversial Senate amendment that would have given local schools broad authority to use the capital outlay flexibility. The bill now says that says school can only use the new spending authority if the district has not increased the capital outlay levy since 2008.

Lawmakers and state officials said the bill had to be changed back to its original version to prevent a large-scale increase in local property taxes.

Dick Tieszen, a lobbyist representing the Sioux Falls School District, opposed the legislation, telling lawmakers that if the legislation locks-in school levies at 2008 levels fewer districts will be able to take advantage of the flexibility offered in SB 191.

“If this is about providing another tool to any district, then don't amend it,” Tieszen said. “I believe you ought to do it for all districts.”

Though the committee endorsed the legislation, some lawmakers became loud critics of a proposal that they said deteriorates the capital outlay fund.

“We are just exchanging one crisis for another crisis,” said Rep. Roger Hunt, R-Brandon. “This is not – and I repeat – not what the capital outlay fund was intended for.”

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

A third attempt to revive a bill that would require all schools to adopt bullying policies has stalled on the House floor.

Lawmakers decided Tuesday not to allow further debate on HB 1279, ending a procedural maneuver called a “smoke-out” that allows lawmakers to circumvent the committee process to pass legislation.

In this case, lawmakers voted 36-34 to uphold the House Education Committee's recommendation that the bill “Do Not Pass.” By sticking with the committee recommendation, the issue was not granted a debate on the House floor.

Following the failure of the smoke-out, ASBSD lobbyists learned that the bill's sponsor, Rep. Dan Lederman, R-Dakota Dunes, may try to revive the issue in the Senate Education Committee.

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

Republican leaders in the House of Representatives say they believe in three education programs that Gov. Mike Rounds has slated for elimination and that money will be available to continue the programs.

The comments came Monday during a House State Affairs committee hearing on HB 1252, legislation that seeks to transfer tobacco tax proceeds from a secondary education enhancement account to the state's general fund.

The dedicated account, called the Education Enhancement Tobacco Tax Fund, was created in 2007 after voters approved a $1 per-pack tax increase on tobacco products. The fund has been used to pay for the Teacher Compensation Assistance Program, Education Service Agencies and $1.5 million in career and technical education grants.

“I think we can support these programs in the final budget using general funds,” said House Speaker Tim Rave, R-Baltic, who said he supports the programs but voted for the bill.

Rave said that approving the measure wouldn't kill funding for the programs, but it would fix concerns raised by Rounds Administration officials that suggest the fund is not meeting expectations.

State budget chief Jason Dilges, who presented the legislation on behalf of the governor, told lawmakers that the dedicated fund hasn't generated enough revenue to pay for the programs. The state general fund had to chip-in $400,000 last year, he said.

When pressed by Rep. Bernie Hunhoff, D-Yankton, Dilges said the governor will continue to push for the cuts. But if legislators chose to fund the programs, they should provide a fix for the cash-strapped special fund by making appropriations through the general fund.

Assistant Majority Leader Rep. Krysti Noem, R-Castlewood, said financial circumstances have changed, but her support for the three programs hasn't faded.

“I believe in all of these programs and all of them have had a great benefit,” Rep. Noem said, adding that they will have an opportunity to build the funding back into the general appropriations bill later.

The committee passed the legislation on a 9-4 vote, despite objections from Democratic lawmakers who said that killing the legislation is the only sure way to continue the programs.

Rep. Noem disagreed, telling lawmakers that the tobacco tax fund isn't a sound funding source.

“This fund doesn't have enough dollars in it,” she said.

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

Lawmakers on Tuesday rebuffed efforts to make a change to state special education law that critics said is redundant and ripe with legal consequences.

Rep. Jacqueline Sly, R-Rapid City, was the prime sponsor of HB 1241, a measure that states districts receiving special education students would have to follow the child's existing individualized education program (IEP) “to the extent possible” until a new plan is developed.

Currently, school districts are required by IDEA and South Dakota administrative rule to provide “comparable services” when a new student transfers into the district.

Existing requirements are sufficient enough, according to Michelle Powers, a special education administrator for the Brookings School District, who called the legislation an “unneeded expansion.”

“We have a responsibility to provide a free and appropriate public education,” Powers said, telling lawmakers that HB 1241 “sets up a level of expectation that really begs to be defined in the courts.”

Powers asked lawmakers to dismiss the legislation that she said “muddies the water” for administrators who are trying to meet the diverse needs of special education students.

“It's my privilege – my honor – to be an educator of these students,” Powers said.

Dick Tieszen, a lobbyist for the Sioux Falls School District, also questioned the need for the change, telling lawmakers that the legislation will set a new precedent that would allow parents and students to seek the exact same services they were once provided, even if it may not be possible in the new district.

“While the bill is well-intended, I believe what we have now works well,” Tieszen said before suggesting to lawmakers that IDEA and administrative rules were carefully thought out and put into place.

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

Lawmakers officially broke ranks with Gov. Rounds' recommended budget two more times Monday, meaning four of the governor's proposals to balance the state budget have now fizzled-out during the legislative process.

Saying the changes could disqualify South Dakota from receiving federal stimulus dollars, legislators dismissed the elimination of increasing and decreasing enrollment payments and killed legislation to freeze property tax levies.

House Bill 1067, which was Gov. Rounds' bill to eliminate aid for districts with enrollment fluctuations, was amended heavily in House Education to remove any reference to the funding cut. The bill now deals with a school board governance issue.

Members of House State Affairs killed HB 1068 – the bill that the governor introduced to freeze property tax levels at FY2009 levels. The bill would have saved the state more than $6 million.

In each case, Administration officials asked lawmakers to defeat the legislation. The issues may resurface once more is known about the federal stimulus package, they said.

The Senate has already passed measures to restore funding for the Birth-to-Three program and to remove the sunset on sparsity aid – two pieces of legislation that were counter to Gov. Rounds' proposed budget.

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

Legislation that would have given the Department of Education control of the state's four technical institutes was defeated Monday on a 14-1 vote.

Committee members rejected HB 1269, praising tech schools for their successes and citing unresolved legal questions as justification for allowing local school boards to maintain governance authority over the state's postsecondary technical institutes.

Though the committee took action today, testimony was handled by a sub committee last week.

Advocates of the change, which included several state government department heads, said transferring authority would broaden the mission of the tech schools and strengthen the current system by giving the institutions a “place at the table” when funding decisions are made.

Critics of the legislation said the plan was developed without consent of the technical schools or lawmakers and expressed worry about eventual transfer of the tech schools to the board of regents. Opponents also questioned whether local assets, including buildings and equipment, could be legally transferred to the state.

ASBSD opposed the legislation based on a resolution adopted at the ASBSD Delegate Assembly.

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

Though lawmakers seem to agree that federal stimulus legislation will significantly impact the state's budget process, state officials are keeping quiet about how the plan would impact K-12 education.

Gov. Mike Rounds told reporters during his week-end press conference that lawmakers can “incorporate into our budget” an estimated $100 million in stimulus money earmarked for education. The money could be used to “reinstate some of the cuts,” Rounds said.

ASBSD has been waiting for state officials to detail their stimulus plans, hoping to gauge how much of the $100 million in “state stabilization” money would be used to restore cuts to K-12 education.

Earlier in the week, Senate Majority Leader Dave Knudson said that the stimulus money could impact formula cuts, such as increasing and decreasing enrollment aid. Programs like birth-to-three and the TCAP could also be affected, he said.

During a press conference today, Sen. Knudson said bills that will freeze special education funding and revise the index factor have a 75 percent chance of being re-worked.

According to the stimulus provisions, money allocated in the state stabilization fund must first be used to restore K-12 and higher education cuts. Any remaining money would be sent to K-12 schools based on their percentage of Title I student population.

Gov. Rounds' revised budget made nearly $20 million in cuts to K-12 education funding and services. Cuts were also made to higher education, but to a lesser degree.

There is still question whether non-formula programs, such as ESAs or TCAP, will be funded. The governor has continued to press lawmakers to balance the structural deficit, and has yet to publicly support any K-12 programs he cut as a part of his revised budget.

There's also uncertainty as to how much – if any – of the state stabilization fund would remain after cuts are restored. Money that flows to K-12 districts through the state stabilization fund can be used at the local districts discretion, and may be used to modernize and repair facilities.

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

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.

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

Lawmakers turned away legislation Friday that would have allowed local school districts the flexibility to charge participant fees for high school activities, voting 10-5 to send HB 1198 to the 41st Legislative Day.

One critic of the plan, Rep. Todd Schlekeway, R-Sioux Falls, said he feared the legislation would create a “class system” between students who could afford to participate.

“There are just some parents who would not want to ask for funding, and that would leave their children out,” Rep. Schlekeway said.

Rep. Tom Brunner, R-Nisland, supported the legislation. He said that parents already pay for non-school sanctioned activities and that activity fees have been charged in the past.

“The is not a new notion,” Brunner said, saying that activities fees were collected in the 1970s.

A host of opponents originally testified against the measure, including the Department of Education, who argued that athletics were an extension of the classroom and fall under the provisions of a free and appropriate public education.

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

Members of House Education rejected HB 1279 on an 8-7 vote, capping a lengthy discussion on the status and importance of school district bullying policies.

“I don't think that the bill is quite ready to be put on the books yet,” said House Education Chair Ed McLaughlin, R-Rapid City, who cast the deciding vote. “We'll leave it to local school districts to address it.”

Nearly every committee member stressed the need to protect students through bullying policies, but less than half voted for it – a dynamic that concerned Rep. Ryan Olson, R-Onida.

“I think this committee agrees that this policy should be adopted,” Rep. Olson said, saying that if the committee voted down the bill, they'd each to have to consider what they would accept as evidence that schools have responded appropriately.

Rep. Bill Van Gerpen, R-Tyndall, voted against the legislation, but said the bill succeeded in creating awareness. It should be clear to school districts that lawmakers are interested in the issue, he said.

ASBSD opposed the legislation, walking a nuanced line against complicated state mandates while encouraging schools to develop local policy. The association has several policies relating to harassment and bullying, and ASBSD will draft a comprehensive sample policy and regulations to disseminate to schools.

The association also plans to work alongside the Department of Education and education advocacy groups to ensure school districts have resources at the local level to address the situation.

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

• Lawmakers killed the the bullying bill.
• Lawmakers killed the pay-to-play bill.
• Lawmakers killed the school administration regions bill.
• Lawmakers "hog-housed" the forced consolidation and small school factor bill, removing everything but a change to the index factor (stay tuned for our coverage of the testimony on this issue - it's fascinating).
• Lawmakers deferred action on the charter school bill, the tech school governance bill and the bill to eliminate increasing/decreasing enrollment funds.

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

Legislation to establish quality benchmarks for voluntary pre-k programs cleared its first hurdle Thursday, winning approval from the Senate Education Committee on a 5-2 vote.

Committee members endorsed SB 191 (read more on the legislation here) after education advocates and business leaders told lawmakers that pre-k is a sound economic investment and will narrow achievement gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged students.

The hearing brought a familiar band of critics, including Concerned Women for America, the Family Policy Council and Eagle Forum. The groups spoke against past attempts to establish pre-k programs.

Opponents levied harsh criticisms for pre-k programs, calling the legislation the “community organizer pre-k plan” and a “fast-track to socialism.” In general, the groups were concerned that “government programs” are too costly and would replace parental rights.

Sen. Dave Knudson, R-Sioux Falls, who supported the legislation, offered what he called a “reality check” for the measure's opponents. He said there is a great need to provide at-risk children with access to quality pre-k programs – especially those from unstable home environments.

“These kids have a very dim future unless we can rescue them at an early age,” Sen. Knudson said.

Testimony in support of the legislation took two distinct tracks, with some supporters speaking directly to the economic benefits of pre-k programs.

Rob Gunewald, an economist with the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank, told lawmakers that the bank's research indicates strong public benefit from investments in high-quality pre-k programs.

“On the margin, the next dollar spent on early childhood education, before children come to kindergarten, would have the strongest impact on human capital and also have the highest return to the public,” Grunewald said.

Public benefit comes from eliminating achievement gaps before they impact a student's long-term academic success, he told lawmakers. Grunewald also praised the structure of the legislation, balling the bill voluntary, targeted and market-based – components he told lawmakers are essential to good public pre-k policy.

While Grunewald's testimony focused mostly on public investments in pre-k, Deputy Education Secretary Deb Barnett told committee members that it's too early to talk about state appropriations.

Barnett said the state must first establish a framework for high-quality pre-k programs – a process required by SB 191. Authoring high-quality benchmarks would ensure maximum benefit to students and taxpayers, Barnett said.

Sen. Bob Gray, R-Pierre, voted against the bill, expressing concerns about the need to fund the bill in the future. He said estimates suggesting the state would spend as much as $4,500 per-student for pre-k programs is triple the cost of private sector programs.

“Leave it to government to make something cost much more than it does in a private setting,” he said.

The legislation will be considered by the full Senate this week.

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

• 61% of these funds will be distributed based on a state’s relative population of 5 to 24 year olds and 39% of these funds will be distributed based on a state’s relative total population
• Each state must first use these funds to restore state funding for K-12 education to its FY 2007-2008 level.
• States must then restore higher education funding to its FY 2007-2008 level.
• If there is any remaining funding after restoring funds to their FY 2007-2008 levels, it must be distributed to school districts based on their share of Title I funding.
• For states to qualify for this funding, they must maintain support for K-12 and higher education at least at the level provided in FY 2005-2006.

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

Legislators and state government officials will attempt to appropriate federal stimulus dollars during the regular session, according to testimony offered Wednesday in the Senate State Affairs Committee.

Assuming normal business of a 40-day session, lawmakers will have approximately 12 legislative days to chart a course for stimulus funding – a task Administration officials and lawmakers acknowledge will be difficult.

The commentary came during a hearing on SB 197, a measure that would have established a special stimulus commission to provide recommendations on how to allocate more than $100 million in stimulus funds earmarked specifically for education.

Neil Fulton, the governor's chief of staff, opposed the legislation, saying the commission wasn't needed because the governor plans to have the Legislature weigh in on stimulus spending through the appropriations process.

Fulton told lawmakers that there would be “discretionary funds of consequence” within the education portion of the stimulus aid, suggesting to lawmakers that they may want to stretch that funding through the state's 2010-11 budget year.

Lawmakers rejected the idea of the commission, saying they hope to handle the stimulus package during the course of the regular session.

Sen. Dave Knudson, who voted against the proposal, said other pieces of legislation can be reworked to include stimulus appropriations.

“This may well have big implications for things such as special education, the TCAP program and the various pieces of our funding formula,” Knudson said.

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

The Senate State Affairs committee unanimously voted to fund the birth-to-three program Wednesday, restoring $2.1 million in state general funds originally cut by Gov. Mike Rounds.

“I can think of a lot of areas we could have cut the budget,” Sen. Abdallah said. “This program should have never been cut in the first place.”

No one testified in opposition to the measure, which is unusual considering the governor's staff typically testifies in opposition to any legislation that changes the Administration's recommended budget.

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

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.

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

Students working toward a GED will satisfy the state's compulsory attendance law, according a measure passed Tuesday by Senate Education.

According to SB 126, 16- and 17-year olds students can enroll in GED programs if their parent or guardian gives the student permission. Students can be excused from public school attendance for one of five reasons, including:

• The student will not graduate with their cohort class because of credit deficiency;
• Authorization from a court services officer;
• A court order requiring the child to enter the program;
• Verification that the child is under the direction of the Department of Corrections; or
• Verification that the child is enrolled in Job Corps

Representatives from the Rapid City and Sioux Falls School Districts supported the change, saying the compromise provides much-needed flexibility for school districts and students.

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

A legislative proposal to change state law that governs annual increases in state aid to education won the approval of the Senate Tuesday.

Senators passed SB 106 on a 26-7 vote, paving the way for the House to consider a measure that would change the state's index factor from “CPI-W or 3 percent, whichever is less” to “CPI-W or 4 percent, whichever is greater.” The bill also contains what supporters call a ‘safety valve' provision that allows for smaller per-student increases in poor economic times.

The measure's prime sponsor, Senate Majority Leader Dave Knudson, R-Sioux Falls, called the measure an “important step forward” for K-12 education funding.

Sen. Knudson told lawmakers that K-12 education's share of the state budget has declined from 39 percent to 31 percent during the past decade – a statistic that business leaders and education advocates say has led to the erosion of South Dakota teacher salaries.

The measure is a long-term solution that would put an end to annual school funding debates, he added.

ASBSD supports the legislation based on a resolution formally adopted at the annual Delegate Assembly.

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

A bill requiring all school districts to develop policies prohibiting bullying and harassment was brought back to life Wednesday.

Members of House Education brought HB 1279 off the table after the bill's sponsor, Rep. Dan Lederman, R-Dakota Dunes, said he drafted amendments to resolve opponent objections to the legislation.

The committee quickly accepted Rep. Lederman's changes, and then amended the bill a third time to refine the definition of harassment to mirror language from a Brandon Valley School District policy that prohibits bullying.

The rapid pace of action and lack of public testimony on the new measure concerned some lawmakers.

“I feel like we're running through this very rapidly, making changes on the fly that could have some unintended consequences,” said Rep. Kim Vanneman, R-Ideal. “We need to step back here and really evaluate this.”

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

A grassroots movement to exempt a county's last high school from South Dakota's forced consolidation law gained momentum today, winning approval Tuesday from the Senate Education committee.

Members of Senate Education passed HB 1171 on a 4-3 vote despite objections from the South Dakota Department of Education and facing the threat of the governor's veto.

School board members, school administrators and business leaders from Herreid asked legislators to approve the exemption, telling lawmakers that the closing their K-12 district, which is approximately 25 miles away from the nearest high school, would be a blow to the quality of education and economic development in the area.

Rep. Charlie Hoffman, R-Eureka, the prime sponsor of the legislation, told lawmakers that the governor may veto the legislation, but asked lawmakers to pass the measure anyway.

A 12-year veteran of the Eureka School Board, Rep. Hoffman said a minimum district size is an arbitrary number and doesn't take into account the needs of students and communities.

Herreid school board members have been working with lawmakers on the concept for several months. On Tuesday, the school district brought a collection of community interests to Pierre to fight for the bill's passage.

The measure passed the House of Representatives on a 36-34 vote. It will be debated by the full Senate later this week.

• A district-by-district breakdown of Title I and IDEA grants (PDF) REFER US DOE
• A state-by-state breakdown of grants to states (PDF) REFER TO US DOE
• A one-sheet explanation of 'school modernization' funds provided through state stabilization funding (PDF).
• A one-sheet explanation of 'investing in excellent teachers' provided through the federal stimulus package (PDF).

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

Cuts to K-12 education may have to be restored if South Dakota wants access to federal stimulus money, Gov. Mike Rounds told reporters during a weekly press conference in Pierre.

The governor said that he's yet to receive complete information on how much the state would receive form the $789 billion stimulus or what types of strings would be attached the federal legislation. More information would be available in 2 to 3 days.

“We don't know what's in the fine print,” Gov. Rounds said. “We're hopeful that there's enough leeway that it will actually help us get through the short term problems.”

The structure of the federal legislation has shifted in recent days and the governor is receiving a continual stream of information – as many as 20 updates an hour, he said – that provide additional information on how federal money would be distributed.

When asked about education funding in the federal stimulus, the governor spoke cautiously.

“We understand most recent legislation lots of strings attached to it,” said Gov. Rounds, adding that recent version of the bills require that states fund K-12 education at the FY08 levels in order to access federal funds. If that's the case, the governor said he would “lobby the legislature not to increase funding, but to leave it at its current level.”

During his hour-long press conference, the governor generally resisted to release number, except to say that the plan would offer $183 million for road construction projects.

He did mention that the legislation included funds to help South Dakota make its share of federal Medicaid payments – relief that would free up state general fund money, the governor said.

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

If there was any doubt that the 2009 Legislative Session is a different than any other, we now have a move by some South Dakota Senators to block a gubernatorial appointment.

At issue is Gov. Rounds' appointment of former House Education Chair Phyllis Heineman to the State Board of Education. Approval of the nomination squeaked out of Senate Education Thursday on a 4-3, party-line vote.

Democratic members of the committee said they could never find agreement with Heineman on education policy. Republicans said they didn't agree with her much either, but they still support the nomination.

Read more from the Associated Press, via the Rapid City Journal.

A short Open Forum Commentary on the situation: Wow.

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

The U.S. House of Representatives are set to vote Friday on the $790 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, action that follows detail-oriented discussions centering on aid to K-12 education.

Open Forum is awaiting specific details, but you can view the summary of the House-Senate compromise here.

For now, read EdWeek's report on the stimulus provisions:

The compromise agreement, worked out by a House and Senate conference committee, would provide $53.6 billion for a state fiscal-stabilization fund, including $39.5 billion that local school districts could use to avert staff layoffs and programmatic cutbacks and to pay for school modernization, among other purposes.

…and…

In addition, the fund would include $8.8 billion that states could use for education and for modernization, renovation, and repair of public schools and higher education facilities, but could also direct to public safety and other pressing needs.

The $39.5 billion of the state stabilization fund for schools would first have to be used by states to “backfill” any cuts they have made to both K-12 and higher education, up to 2008 or 2009 levels. If a state didn't have enough money to make K-12 and higher education whole, the money would have to be spread proportionally between the two.

Money in the stabilization fund would flow to states based in part on their populations of 5- to 24-year-olds. Any leftover money after backfilling cuts would flow to K-12 districts based on existing Title I formulas, and could be used for a host of purposes, including school modernization. New construction is not envisioned, congressional aides said.

… and …

The agreement would also provide $10 billion for Title I programs for disadvantaged students, and $3 billion for Title I school improvement grants. And it would provide $11.7 billion for state grants for special education.

Read the whole article here.

The National School Board Association is working to provide a more detailed summary of the legislation, and NSBA has been an extremely valuable resource during stimulus discussions. Information and resources from NSBA is an ASBSD membership benefit.

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

A plan to allow a temporary increase in capital outlay spending authority cleared another hurdled today, winning approval from the Senate on a 25-9 vote.

Sen. Russ Olson, R-Madison, is the prime sponsor of SB 91, legislation that will allow individual school districts the option to spend up to 45 percent of capital outlay revenue to pay for property insurance, casualty insurance, fuel, utilities, energy cots and contract bus services. The spending authority sunsets in five years.

“We are at the beginning of very tough economic times,” Sen. Olson told committee members, reminding committee members that legislators could return home without giving K-12 education a per-student increase.

Olson said school district budget problems are compounded by the rising cost of energy and fuel.

“In any other year, in any other time, I wouldn't bring this bill forward,” he said.

Sen. Jean Hunhoff, R-Yankton, voted against the measure. She said school districts will use the money for ongoing expenses and, when the law phases out, ask the Legislature to make up the difference.

“It's going to have an impact down the road on the Legislature,” she said.

Sen. Cory Brown, R-Gettysburg, said lawmakers should trust local school boards to make prudent decisions.

“I see this as a way to give a little bit of flexibility to our local school boards were were elected and were chosen to make these decisions,” he said.

The legislation must now pass the House.

Comments (2) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

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.

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

The state should hold the line on school funding decisions made two years ago and should boost per-pupil funding when the economy rebounds, members of the Senate Education Committee decided.

Lawmakers unanimously endorsed SB 106 Thursday, legislation that would change state law – referred to as the index factor - that governs annual per-student increases to K-12 education.

Currently, the per-student allocation increases annually by 3 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. Under SB 106, per-student funding couldn't be cut and would increase by a minimum of 4 percent in most years. However, passing the legislation would likely mean next year's per-student allocation wouldn't increase.

Sen. Dave Knudson, R-Sioux Falls, asked lawmakers to pass the legislation.

“I think the bill adjusts to fit the time,” Sen. Knudson said, adding that the bill would provide the state with flexibility in tough budget times but gives schools larger increases when the state's economy rebounds.

Passing the legislation makes it possible to save funds for districts with fluctuating enrollments, aid to districts serving sparsely populated areas and money set aside for the Teacher's Compensation Assistance Program, according to Knudson.

Tammy Darnall, a representative of the Department of Education, opposed the legislation. She said current law serves as the basis for the governor's budget, which she said “holds school districts harmless” in tough economic times.

Sen. Knudson was quick to contest Darnall's arguments, reminding her that the governor has cut non-formula K-12 aid and programs. The Senator also pointed out that current law is supposed to guarantee an increase in per-student special education funding – a provision that the governor has chose not to honor this year.

“How much is that guarantee worth?” Knudson asked.

Building off the hold-harmless discussion, Sen. Knudson asked committee members to approve and amendment that would ensure the per-student allocation couldn't decrease in any given year.

Under current law, the per-student allocation could decrease accordingly if inflation is negative – a situation that may occur next year, given the continued downward trend of the CPI-W, the inflation measure currently used to calculate state aid.

Inflation statistics released for December show a decline in consumer prices relative to the previous year – an event that hasn't occurred since the South Dakota decided to use the CPI-W to govern state aid increases. If the trend continues, CPI-W will be negative 1.25 percent for FY11.

In briefings with the media, Gov. Rounds has acknowledged that trends in the CPI-W would mean schools wouldn't get an increase in per-student funding next year. The governor hasn't commented on whether K-12 aid would decrease if the CPI-W is negative.

The full Senate will consider the measure next.

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

As of 11:00 a.m., the House Rules Committee does not have the conference committee report. NSBA isworking with the Speaker's Office oninformation for asummary and specific examples that can be referenced in remarks.

The House may vote on the conference report late today or tomorrow. However, the Clerk does not have it scheduled yet.

As soon as we can confirm specific funding allocations for education and any related provisions, we will forward an update.

THESE ARE VERY PRELIMINARY DETAILS AND MAY NOT RELFECT THE FINAL AGREEMENT WHICH IS BEING PREPARED BY CONGRESSIONAL STAFF:

For now, we are told that the agreement retains funding for IDEA, Title I, and a portion of state fiscal stabilization funding for education.There is reportedly funding for school infrastructure repairs and modernization.However, we do not know if this is a separate allocation or part of the state stabilization funding.Details regarding flexibility and use of funding are not available now.

Open Forumwill keep you posted as soon as we know more.

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

Negotiations on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act wrapped up Wednesday, when Congressional leaders and Obama aides settled on a compromise legislation totaling $789 billion.

According to CNN, the final compromise includes between $6 and $9 million slated to modernize and repair schools – about half the amount included in the original House version. The senate version didn't include any funding for K-12 facilities.

The agreement also includes $44 billion in aid to states, about $5 billion more than the Senate version but $35 million less than the House stimulus. At this point, it's unclear whether any money flowing to states would be set aside specifically for K-12 education.

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

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

Members of Senate Education endorsed a measure Tuesday that will give local school districts more flexibility with the use of capital outlay funds.

Lawmakers passed SB 91, legislation that will allow individual school districts the option to spend up to 45 percent of capital outlay revenue to pay for property insurance, casualty insurance, fuel, utilities, energy cots and contract bus services.

Several administrators testified that the legislation would free up much-needed general fund revenue to help school districts cope through tough economic times.

As originally drafted, schools qualified for the spending authority only if the district's capital outlay levy was less than or equal to the district's levy for the 2007-08 school year.

Lawmakers changed that this morning, saying the original language wasn't fair to all school districts.  

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

President Barack Obama is calling on Congress to restore K-12 education funds cut under a Senate stimulus plan, the Washington Post reports.

His comments came during a town hall meeting in Elkhart, IN, in which the President urged lawmakers to act quickly to pass a stimulus plan. About 1,700 people packed into a high school gym heard President Obama say education will play a central role in any economic recovery.

The Senate is reportedly considering passage of an $827 billion stimulus plan that calls for more tax cuts and less government spending (read more here) than legislation that passed in the House.

According to the Post report, President Obama didn't specify how much K-12 funding should be restored, but many believe the president was referring to nearly $14 billion in school construction funds included in the House's version of the stimulus.

Open Forum will keep you updated as we learn more.

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

United States Senators reportedly agreed Friday night on an $827 billion federal stimulus package.

The deal, which will be considered in the Senate this week, sets the stage for negotiations between the House and Senate. A final package could be delivered to President Obama before the President's Day holiday.

Congressional leaders say the House and Senate plans overlap considerably.

“Our bill is 90 percent the same as the House,” Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, said during NBC's Sunday morning political affairs show Meet the Press.

Funding for Title I and IDEA federal education programs survived the Senate's scalpel. Late last week, ASBSD learned that a group of Senators were attempting to cut federal education aid in half, but the compromise will invest $12.4 billion in Title I and $13 billion in IDEA for FY09 and FY10 – a total that closely mirrors the House's effort.

The Senate plan scuttles 21st Century Classrooms funding – a $14 billion line item in the House's plan that provided more than $60 million to upgrade South Dakota K-12 facilities.

According to political news web site Politico, Senate Republicans were reluctant to invest in K-12 facilities, arguing the move would expand the federal government's reach into an area that has traditionally been a state and local government matter.

The Senate plan also nixes a host of federal K-12 spending that would fall under the discretion of the U.S. Department of Education, including $300 million for teacher quality grants and $250 million to modernize state data systems.

Some K-12 education cuts could fall in a category of spending Senators said should be included in the federal budget and not in a stimulus bill.

“The 10 percent difference was some of the cuts that we made in some of the things that could be put in an omnibus appropriations bill or an appropriations bill,” said Sen. McCaskill.

The biggest philosophical shift between the House and Senate stimulus plans is money allocated for fiscal relief to state governments. The House plan included $79 billion, which would have delivered nearly $170 million to South Dakota. The Senate version includes $39 billion in direct aid to states.

Money flowing to states could be a point of negotiation between the House and Senate, according Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, who supports in more aid to states.

“The wasteful spending that my colleagues are talking about, money to go to the states to stop from laying off cops and firefighters, money to help keep teachers going - those are jobs,” Rep. Frank told his fellow lawmakers on Sunday's Meet the Press. “There seems to be this notion that if you hire someone to do something useful, that somehow becomes social spending that doesn't count.”

It remains unclear how South Dakota might use federal stimulus aid.

Gov. Mike Rounds has suggested that federal one-time money won't be used to close the state's current budgetary gaps. He has asked lawmakers to minimize a structural deficit – a figure he says tops $80 million – without relying on federal dollars.

The governor has he will likely call a special session once a stimulus deal is reached. According to Gov. Rounds, the state may use the money to replenish state reserves weakened from the current budget shortfall.

ASBSD will have more on the stimulus plan as it develops.

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

Lawmakers unanimously endorsed legislation Thursday that supporters say will protect South Dakota's initiative process from being abused by out-of-state interest groups.

The House State Affairs Committee passed HB 1184, a measure that will provide citizens with more information during the petitioning process and allow for an intervening legislative session prior to a statewide vote on any initiated measure.

According to the legislation, signatures gatherers would be required to provide citizens an explanation – written by the Attorney General - of the proposed law's impact. Currently, the Attorney General writes the explanation displayed on the ballot.

The bill's House sponsor, Rep. David Lust, R-Rapid City, said the changes would ensure citizens have accurate information before signing a petition. Signature gatherers in 2006 and 2008 misrepresented and oversimplified the “Jail 4 Judges” and “Open and Clean Government” initiated measures to gain signatures, Lust said.

The bill also states that Legislative session must occur before the any initiated measure or referred law is placed on the state ballot – the same threshold required for proposed Constitutional amendments.

ASBSD supports the legislation.

If passed, it would go into effect after the 2010 statewide election. The bill will be debated on the House floor next week.

Another bill – HB 1188– also makes changes to the initiative process. Under the proposal, petitioners would have to gather signatures from 5 percent of the registered voters in each county. Currently, the process requires 5 percent of registered South Dakota voters.

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

Lawmakers killed legislation that would have allowed school districts to publish minutes and other legal notices on an official web site instead of paying to have them published in newspapers.

The House Local Government committee voted 7-5 to defeat HB 1135, arguing the money spent on publishing notices is an investment in government transparency.

“I'm very concerned about transparency,” said Dennis Feickert, D-Aberdeen. “My mother, who is 84 years old in the nursing home, is not going to read this information over the Internet.”

Representatives from state and local government organizations, including ASBSD, testified in favor of the bill, saying the money would free up much-needed general fund dollars.

Rapid City School Board Member Wes Storm, who also serves on the ASBSD Board of Directors, told lawmakers that his school district spent $66,000 printing public notices last year.

“That's the starting salary of two teachers,” Storm said, urging lawmakers to pass the legislation.

The measure faced strong opposition from the South Dakota Newspaper Association. The organization's lobbyist, Dave Bordewyk, told lawmakers that the move wouldn't save money and would allow public notices to be manipulated.

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

The state won't require early childhood education providers to adopt state-developed pre-kindergarten standards, according to measure lawmakers will consider this session.

Legislation authorizing the State Board of Education to develop pre-k standards has failed during the past two legislative sessions, largely due to opposition voiced by private pre-k providers who argued that minimum standards would create unfair competition and increase private-sector costs.

According to SB 191, pre-k providers aren't required to adhere to standards, though they have the option to seek certification. However, the bill does require that any state-subsidized pre-k programs must adhere to “evidence-based quality benchmarks.”

Though the legislation mentions state-funded pre-k programs, it doesn't contain an appropriation. The measure does say, however, any future state-funded pre-k programs could only serve students from families whose household income is at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level.

The bill also contains other safeguards intended to mitigate concerns of voluntary pre-k programs opponents, including a provision that no child may be required to attend pre-k. The legislation also makes it clear that K-12 schools won't automatically secure state funding – the process must first go through a early learning advisory group comprised community stake holders and then needs to be approved by the State Department of Education.

Sen. Tom Dempster, R-Sioux Falls, and Rep. Shantel Krebs, R-Sioux Falls, are the prime sponsors of the legislation.

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

Senate Education took testimony but delayed action on legislation that a Sioux Falls lawmaker says would allow students to transfer into GED programs if completing high school isn't an option.

With a law requiring students to stay in high school until 18 set to go into effect in July, Senate Majority Leader Dave Knudson, R-Sioux Falls, introduced SB 126, a measure he said would provide “additional alternatives for students who don't flourish in a traditional high school.”

Once the new compulsory attendance law goes into effect, 16- and 17-year-olds would no longer able to leave school to work towards a graduate equivalency because, under law, the student would be considered truant.

Judith Roberts, a lobbyist for the Unified Judicial System, testified in support of the bill. The court system has jurisdiction over truant students, and, without a GED option their caseload could increase by 700 cases per year, Roberts said.

Rapid City School Board Member Wes Storm, who also serves on the ASBSD Board of Directors, asked lawmakers to pass the legislation.

“It gives us some opportunities to work with students who may have some problems,” Storm said, adding the Rapid City has more than 160 students who are currently seeking a GED. “Some of these kids are married, some have families, some have two jobs,” he said.

Representatives from the Sioux Falls School District and School Administrators of South Dakota also supported the bill.

Wade Pogany, a representative of the South Dakota Department of Education, opposed the legislation. He said school districts are working to implement the new law and asked lawmakers to give the policy a chance to work.

Pogany also pointed out “logistical problems” within the legislation.

According to Pogany, 16- and 17-year-olds are required to be in school and wouldn't be allowed to take GED tests. The students wouldn't be allowed to enroll in Department of Labor programs either, Pogany said, because the agency has restructured programs to comply with compulsory attendance laws and no longer allows children under 18 to participate.

Pogany also said the legislation would impact graduation rates, because NCLB counts students enrolled in GED programs as high school drop-outs.

The committee delayed action on the legislation to allow sponsors time to gather amendments.

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

Lawmakers seeking to curb K-12 administrative costs have proposed a plan to force the state's school districts to share school administration.

Under House Bill 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.

The proposal calls for each school district to appoint one local school board member to an oversight board that hires personnel – including superintendents and business managers – to provide administrative services to the member districts. The "school administration region board" can also hire curriculum directors, technology coordinators and speech pathologists.

Building principals remain under the authority of local school boards, and don't fall under the authority of the regional school administration board.

Comments (3) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story

Lawmakers will consider whether to require school districts to adopt policies prohibiting harassment and bullying.

Rep. Dan Lederman, R-Dakota Dunes, is the prime sponsor for HB 1279, a measure that defines bullying and harassment and requires school districts to adopt anti-bullying policies by Dec. 1, 2009.

Under the bill, bullying is defined by “causing of physical hurt or psychological distress on one or more students or employees.” Harassment is defined as use of “data or computer software, written or verbal communication, or conduct” that places a student or school employee “in reasonable fear of harm” and “substantially interferes with a student's educational performance” or “substantially disrupts the orderly operation of a school.”

According to the legislation, local policies would have to:

• Define and prohibit bullying;
• Outline consequences for bullying;
• Develop mechanism for reporting bullying; and
• Develop a procedure to investigate and respond to any report of bullying.

The legislation allows local school districts the option to incorporate several other elements in to bullying and harassment policies, including a system to notify parents of any bullying incident and to determine whether any act of bullying is within the jurisdiction of the school district.

ASBSD opposes the legislation, but not the concept. The state school board association encourages school boards to adopt bullying policies, but recognizes that the scope and form of policy varies by school district and should be left to each community.

Most schools already have bullying policies. But, even if a school board has adopted a formal policy prohibiting harassment and bullying, the legislation stipulates that the board must review the policy to ensure compliance.

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

Teacher salaries are eroding and the state's “3 percent or less” school finance policy is to blame, business leaders told lawmakers Tuesday.

The comments came during a Senate Education committee hearing on SB 106, legislation that will permanently change the definition of the index factor that governs annual increases to state aid to education.

Bob O'Connell, a representative of the Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce, told lawmakers that the business community relies on K-12 schools to ensure the state's students are prepared for the workforce.

“We need to have the best educated and able citizens that we can produce,” O'Connell said. “The most important element in academic achievement is a good teacher.”

To outline limitations the state's “3 percent or less” school finance policy places on school districts, O'Connell shared a 12-minute video featuring data on K-12 funding and labor market trends (see the presentation here).

According to the data, increases in average teacher salaries began falling in 1995 with the adoption of the new K-12 funding formula. During that time, changes in private sector salaries outpaced K-12 teacher salaries, causing what business leaders called the “erosion of teacher salaries.”

O'Connell asked lawmakers to pass SB 106, a measure to change the state's index factor from “CPI-W or 3 percent, whichever is less” to the “CPI-W or 4 percent, whichever is greater.” The bill also contains a safeguard that will tie per-student increases to the state's economic prosperity in years that state revenues don't increase by more than 4 percent.

The bill's prime sponsor, Sen. Dave Knudson, R-Sioux Falls, told members of Senate Education that the bill is an alternative to Gov. Rounds' K-12 funding proposals.

“The governor has proposed a number of cuts to education and has left the per-pupil amount at 3 percent,” Knudson said. “This has been a case of the left hand giveth and the right hand taketh away.”

Sen. Knudson also said that his proposal is designed to work in conjunction with formula changes made in 2007, including sparsity funding and aid for districts with increasing and decreasing enrollment. The measure is also designed to maintain the Teacher's Compensation Assistance Program, he said.

A number of education advocacy groups supported the legislation, including ASBSD, the South Dakota Education Association, the School Administrators of South Dakota and the South Dakota Coalition of Schools.

State government officials provided the only opposition. They said the proposal would make the school formula more complex and that the state' couldn't afford the legislation – claims that Sen. Knudson dismissed.

The committee will take action on the legislation at a later date.

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

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.

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

South Dakota could have 100 fewer school districts by 2013 if legislation filed Monday makes its way through the Legislature.

House Education Chair Ed McLaughlin, R-Rapid City, is joined by a host of Rapid City area legislators in proposing HB 1254, a measure that will increase the minimum school size to 250 and dramatically slash the small school adjustment.

The plan triggers two waves of forced consolidation. Districts with enrollments below 175 will have to consolidate immediately. Schools with less than 250 students will have to merge starting in 2011. According to current fall enrollment numbers, the measure forces the closure of approximately 60 South Dakota school districts.

The remaining small schools aren't likely to survive, though. That's because the proposal also contains a 75 percent reduction in the small school adjustment, dropping the maximum value to $211 per-student by 2012.

That's not all – HB 1254 also:

• Eliminates declining enrollment aid, but keeps increasing enrollment aid for districts that experience a 25-student increase in enrollment.
• Changes the index factor from “3 percent or CPI, whichever is less” to “the CPI-W up to a maximum of 4 percent or the 3 percent, whichever is greater.”
• Increases consolidation incentives temporarily, until 2013.

ASBSD opposes the bill.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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