A controversial package of education reforms narrowly passed the South Dakota House of Representatives Wednesday, earning support by the slimmest possible margin. House Bill 1234 will now be delivered to Gov. Dennis Daugaard, who is expected to sign the legislation.

The vote came in the early evening, after consideration of the measure had been delayed three times during the day. Debate lasted for more than an hour, and the bill passed with 36 votes, a single vote above the threshold required for approval.

House Education Chair Tom Brunner, R-Nisland, was the first to speak in favor of the bill, telling lawmakers that the measure had changed significantly in response to concerns from the education community. He ticked off numerous changes that he said would put additional money into the hands of the state’s teachers and bolster local control. He urged passage of the bill, which he said “starts us down the road to true education reform.”

A bipartisan coalition attacked the issue from several angles, including the supporters’ contention that the bill would lead to improved student achievement.

Rep. Scott Munsterman, R-Brookings, argued that the bill was flawed because it lacked the input of the education community. He challenged the notion that the reforms will drive improvement, saying policies within the bill have proven ineffective elsewhere.

Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Shawn Tornow, R-Sioux Falls, and Rep. Laura Hubbel, R-Sioux Falls, objected to the bill’s composition, arguing that it dealt with more than one subject – a tactic specifically prohibited by the South Dakota Constitution.

Rep. Bernie Hunhoff, D-Yankton, had the sharpest criticism for the bill, saying it was misguided for trying to fix problems that don’t exist in South Dakota. He also said lawmakers supporting the bill hadn’t learned their lesson that top-down education reform is destined for failure.

“The Pierre bureaucrats want to take over our schools,” Rep. Hunhoff said.

The measure has changed significantly since it was first released in late January.

The bill now contains two provisions that may result in additional investments in K-12 education, but that will only happen if the state has the financial resources and if future lawmakers vote to fund the program – two variables that are far from certain, despite Gov. Daugaard’s pledge to include funding in future budget recommendations.

The bill promises to devote $10 million toward alternative teacher compensation. Schools can choose to participate in a statewide merit pay program, or can allocate the equivalent of $1,000 per teacher via a “local teacher reward plan,” which can be based on boosting achievement, teacher leadership or hiring teachers in tough-to-fill positions. The measure also includes $2,500 bonuses for effective math and science teachers, and will create a scholarship program to motivate individuals to teach in high-need areas.

The bill will grant local school boards the authority to offer continuing contract and due process rights, effective in the 2016-17 school year. Once implemented, teachers who don’t have continuing contract will only earn it if school boards choose to offer the protection.

One portion of the measure – a mandated staff evaluation system – remains unchanged from the original plan proposed by Gov. Daugaard. Beginning in the 2014-15 school year, all schools will have to use a statewide evaluation system and evaluation instrument, and state law will dictate how often both teachers and principals must be evaluated. For teachers, half the evaluation must be based on quantitative measures of student performance, a significant and potentially costly change from current law that requires teacher evaluation.

The bill’s evaluation components were a major sticking point for school board members. ASBSD supported the measure during a House Education Committee hearing, but expressed reservations about the evaluation components, including the cost of student testing that would be required. ASBSD became an opponent of the legislation later in the session, after it became clear that the unfunded staff evaluation mandates were not going to be altered.

Voting YES (36)

Boomgarden, Brunner, Carson, Conzet, Cronin, Dryden, Gosch, Greenfield, Haggar, Hansen, Hickey, Hoffman, Hunt, Jensen, Kirkeby, Kopp, Lust, Magstadt, Miller, Novstrup, Olson, Perry, Rozum, Schaefer, Scott, Sly, Solum, Steele, Turbiville, Vanneman, Vener, White, Wick, Willadsen, Rausch

Voting NO (33)

Blake, Bolin, Deelstra, Dennert, Elliot, Fargen, Feickert, Feinstein, Gibson, Hawley, Hubbel, Hunhoff, Iron Could, Jones, Killer, Kirschmann, Kloucek, Liss, Lucas, Moser, Munsterman, Nelson, Romkema, Russel, Schrempp, Sigestead, Street, Stricherz, Tornow, Tulson, Van Gerpen, Wink, Wismer

Excused

Abdallah

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

Schools that don’t already have a policy prohibiting bullying will have to adopt one, members of the South Dakota House of Representatives decided Tuesday.

The action came on SB 130, an anti-bullying measure that has changed several times during session. In its current form, it contains maximum flexibility for school boards. The House Education committee restored language that explicitly states “nothing in this Act supplants or preempts an existing school district policy.” The language is backed by the Attorney General Marty Jackley, who told members of House Education that local control should be the cornerstone of any anti-bullying policy.

The House-amended version is an improvement over the measure as it passed the Senate, which would have required all districts to revisit bullying policies to ensure they conform to a state-established bullying definition. Senators preferred the mandate.

The measure now returns to the Senate for concurrence, rejection or to determine whether the issue will go into conference committee.

ASBSD supports the House-amended version.

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

Members of the South Dakota Senate voted late Tuesday to send $8.6 million in one-time money to K-12 schools in the current budget year.

The action came during floor debate on HB 1137, a bill that makes adjustments to the current year budget. Bolstered by recent revenue projections that show the state will have $10 million more to spend before June 30, Senators voted to send $70 per-student to schools before the end of FY12. The additional aid is delivered outside the formula, and will not trigger a local property tax match.

The measure also includes more than $12 million to fund a one-time, 5 percent bonus to state employees and enough money to give similar raises to workers in community health centers. The bill also contains funds to help ensure Ellsworth Air Force Base survives the next round of military base closures.

The bill will be considered by the House of Representatives tomorrow, on the same day the body is scheduled to consider the controversial HB 1234.

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

The South Dakota Senate voted 22-12 Monday to send a controversial education reform plan back to the House of Representatives.

Lawmakers debated HB 1234 for more than 90 minutes, spending most of that time dismissing a series of amendments, including a proposal to scrap the plan and send it into a summer study. Before taking the final vote, Senators stripped the measure of language that would have required a two-thirds majority for passage and added a sixth advisory task force to study education reform and report back to the Legislature. The major components of the bill remain unchanged.

Senate Education Chair Mark Johnston, R-Sioux Falls, asked lawmakers to endorse the plan. He said the bill was changed significantly in response to stakeholder input, and the measure will rely on groups of education professionals to determine how the components will be implemented. Most importantly, he said, the bill provides schools with additional money that can be used to better compensate teachers.

Sen. Jason Frerichs, D-Wilmot, challenged the notion that the legislation provides schools with any additional resources. He also questioned whether lawmakers would want to “own” the measure if they voted to endorse it, arguing that none of his constituents have asked him to support the measure.

The bill now returns to the House, where legislators will determine to accept the changes made in the Senate, to push the bill into a conference committee or to reject the plan altogether.

ASBSD opposes the legislation.

VOTING FOR: Brown; Fryslie; Gray; Hansen (Tom); Haverly; Heineman; Holien; Johnston; Juhnke; Kraus; Krebs; Lederman; Maher; Nelson (Tom); Novstrup (Al); Olson (Russell); Peters; Rampelberg; Rave; Rhoden; Tieszen; Vehle

VOTING AGAINST: Adelstein; Begalka; Bradford; Buhl; Cutler; Frerichs; Hunhoff (Jean); Nygaard; Putnam; Schlekeway; Sutton; Tidemann

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

A plan to require schools to submit additional financial data met its demise Friday on the floor of the South Dakota House of Representatives.

Legislators voted 42-25 to dismiss SB 127, a bill that would allow the South Dakota Department of Education to conduct an annual survey on school budgets and staffing decisions. The measure was filed after dozens of schools chose not to respond to an electronic survey sent by Sen. Corey Brown, R-Gettysburg. The request asked for details on school district budgets following sweeping cuts to per-student funding.

Rep. Larry Lucas, D-Mission, told lawmakers that schools already provide significant amounts of financial data, which is available on the state education department’s website. He said schools have trust issues with legislators, especially following the state’s failure to honor the per-student funding formula, so that may explain why schools opted not to return the survey.

Rep. Patty Miller, R-McCook Lake, also spoke in opposition, arguing that schools have enough to deal with without having to respond to an annual survey. The survey may provide useful information, she said, but lawmakers didn’t need to add the requirement this year.

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

South Dakota needs to slow the growth of taxes paid by the state’s electric cooperatives, lawmakers said Friday. The South Dakota House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to change the way power cooperatives are taxed, shifting from a gross receipts tax to a charge per unit of power sold.

Senate Bill 123 affects revenue received by schools outside of the state’s education funding formula. As approved, the measure would allow tax revenue collected from cooperatives to grow at about 4 percent per year, down from the 10 percent annual increases allowed by current law. Backers argue the change benefits consumers and will allow the cooperatives to compete on a level playing field with investor-owned utilities.

The bill now moves to back to the Senate, where lawmakers must vote on changes made in the House. The proposal was altered last week to include a provision that cooperative lobbyists said would hold schools harmless from the change while providing a one-year boost to schools as the state shifts to the new taxation policy.

ASBSD opposes the legislation, and is unable to obtain the information necessary to validate the impact of the policy.

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

The South Dakota Department of Education will have $8.4 million to develop a three-year training program to help schools implement Common Core academic standards and a new state mandated teacher evaluation instrument.

Lawmakers resumed debate Friday on SB 192, opting to reverse an amendment added a day prior that would direct the training money to schools on a per-student basis. The change would have meant an extra $65 per-student for next year, but legislators said Friday that the money is best spent on a state-led training effort.

Rep. Dean Wink, R-Howes, told House members that restoring the training program is the most efficient way to help schools implement the new state mandates, and asked lawmakers to “relieve the burden that [schools] would have to bear.”

Legislators restored the training program on a 41-27 vote, then overwhelmingly passed SB 192.

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

Members of House Education on Friday voted to scrap a controversial plan to rate schools on financial performance, but backers of the system are likely to revive the concept later this session.

The action came during a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, a bill that was originally intended to replace outdated public school accountability laws that were enacted following the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. ASBSD initially supported the measure, but switched to opposing the plan after members of Senate Appropriations tacked on language that will rate schools on their financial performance.

ASBSD Executive Director Wade Pogany on Friday asked lawmakers to scrap the financial component of the bill, arguing that the measure infringes upon local control. He also questioned whether the plan is attempting to mirror a program in Texas, which dictates statewide spending restrictions, including thresholds for spending on school administration.

“You have the best accountability system in place – they’re called school boards,” Pogany said, adding that existing law already requires schools to make public all expenditure information and audit results. “We don’t really understand the problem that’s trying to be solved.”

Sen. Phyllis Heineman, R-Sioux Falls, asked lawmakers to keep the language in place. She said audits and other reporting only show that schools are spending the money according to law, but there’s no measure to determine whether the money is being spent effectively. She previously said the plan would allow the state to identify and share financial best practices.

Pogany challenged that notion Friday, suggesting that school business managers already collaborate and share effective budgeting strategies.

“Business managers in this state, when they have to cut $52 million, they talk to each other,” he said.

Committee members agreed to strip the language, but several lawmakers suggested that the plan may be included in SB 127, a separate bill that requires schools to report any financial information that the South Dakota Department of Education wants to collect.

Sen. Deb Peters, R-Sioux Falls, told lawmakers that removing the language wouldn’t change the fact that appropriations committee members will get the information they want. She said the committee works hard to track state agency spending, and wants to do the same with funds sent to local schools.

After deleting the financial rating system, members of House Education passed Senate Bill 25.

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

Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s proposal to fund training to implement two new state reforms hit a stumbling block Thursday on the floor of the South Dakota House of Representatives.

During debate on SB 192, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers voted to direct to schools $8.4 million that the governor pledged to help administrators and teachers incorporate Common Core standards and new state mandated teacher and principal evaluation systems. As amended, the plan would deliver approximately $65 per-student in one-time money for next year.

Rep. Paul Dennert, D-Columbia, asked lawmakers to approve the change. He told legislators that schools need additional per-student funding, and SB 192 was the only opportunity lawmakers have had to support additional funding for schools. He isn’t against funding the training programs, he said, but he also thinks schools need additional per-student funding.

Rep. Jim Bolin, R-Canton, joined in support of the change, but for different reasons. He told legislators that the bill would de-fund the state’s efforts to implement common core standards, a policy he doesn’t believe is worth pursuing – a point he also made during a committee hearing on the measure, where the amendment to convert the training money to per-student aid narrowly failed.

As amended, SB 192 offers approximately $96 per-student in one-time funding for next year, nearly equal to the one-time allocation that schools are receiving in the current year. The governor’s proposal to increase ongoing funding by 2.3 percent remains alive, but legislators won’t vote on that plan until they consider one of several other legislative proposals.

The measure, which housed one-time funding for several areas of state government, was stalled after the amendment was added. It’s uncertain whether the change will stand.

Rep. Dennert told lawmakers Thursday that he wouldn’t have offered the amendment if he had assurances that schools would get additional per-student funding through another bill.

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

The state school board association on Thursday voiced opposition to a controversial education reform bill that has dominated legislative debates since being announced Jan. 10.

ASBSD Executive Director Dr. Wade Pogany told members of Senate Education that HB 1234 has not changed enough to satisfy the state’s school board members. School boards aren’t convinced the plan will work, he said. Pogany recognized that the bill has changed, but commented that a second major rewrite illustrates that the bill isn’t ready to become law.

“We need to continue the debate, continue the conversation, but not in the frame that it is in now,” Pogany said. “This is too much, too quick and too risky.”

At the start of the public hearing, Sen. Deb Peters, R-Hartford, pitched a sweeping amendment to HB 1234, a second rewrite that she said was reflective of educator input. The committee added three amendments after taking public comment, and the bill looks significantly different than the version passed that passed the House two weeks ago.

The amended version creates a Critical Teaching Needs Scholarship, which offers two years of college tuition reimbursement for new public school teachers who choose to work in critical need teaching areas for five years. The South Dakota Board of Education will define critical areas of need, and a separate advisory board will award up to 100 scholarships per year beginning in the 2013-14 school year.

Lawmakers also added back a provision to provide rewards for current math and science teachers, a provision that was jettisoned in the House. In the latest version, math and science teachers will receive a $2,500 bonus if they earn at least a proficient rating on a new state-mandated teacher evaluation system. The component will become effective in the 2014-15 school year.

A controversial plan to eliminate continuing contract was also pared back, and the law now makes it clear that local school boards will have the option of offering continuing contract and due process rights. The language will become effective for the 2016-17 school year, following the implementation of a new statewide teacher evaluation system.

Members of Senate Education also endorsed minor changes to parts of the bill that introduce alternative teacher compensation mechanisms. School districts can either choose to participate in a statewide merit pay program or create a “local teacher reward program” to distribute $1,000 per teacher based on local needs. Districts can reward teachers for improving student achievement or for taking on additional leadership responsibilities, or to help recruit teachers in areas of critical need. Local plans must be approved by an oversight board. If the district’s application is denied, the school board can choose not to take the funds or adopt one of several model reward plans developed by a state work group. This provision will become effective in the 2014-15 school year.

Representatives of the Brookings, Harrisburg, Irene-Wakonda and Sioux Falls school districts also testified in opposition to the bill. Diana Miller and Mitch Richter, lobbyists representing schools of various sizes, and representatives of the Mitchell School District testified in favor. Lobbyists representing farmers and business interests also supported the plan.

Committee members rejected an amendment to put the issue into 10-month study, then passed the bill on a 5-2 vote. The bill now moves to the Senate floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Members of the House Appropriations Committee approved legislation Wednesday that will provide schools with one-time money next year and fund a three-year training effort to help schools implement two new state-mandated education reforms.

The action came during a public hearing on SB 192, a measure that includes a host of one-time appropriations recommended last December during Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s budget address. The plan delivers $31 in one-time per-student funding to K-12 schools and also includes additional one-time allocations for Medicaid providers and the state’s public universities.

The proposal won unanimous approval from lawmakers, but only after the committee narrowly rejected an amendment to turn over to K-12 schools the $8.4 million set aside to fund the implementation of Common Core academic standards and new staff evaluation mandates. Rep. Jim Bolin, R-Canton, asked lawmakers to approve the change, arguing that the training funds would be better spent if the state simply provided schools with the additional funding.

The amendment drew opposition from Jason Dilges, the state’s top budget official, who told lawmakers that the state could more efficiently deliver the training. Education Secretary Dr. Melody Schopp also asked committee members to reject the amendment. She said the training initiative was requested by school superintendents who told her the state needed to show leadership as the two programs were being implemented.

The amendment failed by a single vote.

The proposal now moves to the House floor. ASBSD supports the legislation.

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

Lawmakers endorsed Wednesday a proposal to change the way South Dakota taxes electric cooperatives, a change that opponents argue will reduce funding for the state’s public schools.

After rejecting a hold-harmless amendment offered by education advocates, members of the House State Affairs committee changed the bill slightly and voted 10-1 to send SB 123 to the House floor for further consideration.

Proponents of the measure, including the electric cooperatives, told lawmakers that existing state policy has resulted in an annual 10 percent tax increase on every South Dakotan. Electric cooperatives currently pay a 2 percent gross receipts tax on the power sold to consumers. Under the measure, cooperatives will be taxed at a fixed rate per kilowatt hour sold; a change that the bill’s backers said would stabilize growth to about 4 percent per year.

For schools, the shift in taxation means a decrease in future district revenue, but the immediate impact on school funding has been difficult to determine. Education groups, including ASBSD, asked lawmakers to change the bill to include protections preventing school district revenue from decreasing. Lawmakers didn’t act on the amendment, and instead added REA-backed language that the bill’s supporters said “certainly holds [schools] harmless” and gives schools a “bonus” in the first year.

Lawmakers expressed frustration about the lack of information detailing the financial impact of the proposed law. Lawmakers repeatedly requested comparisons of how the change would affect public schools, but were told by the bill’s supporters that information has been shared only with local schools across the state.

During time reserved for committee comments, Rep. David Lust, R-Rapid City, said it was disappointing that no one was willing to share how the proposed law would impact schools across the state. He also criticized what he said was a “flurry” of last-minute amendments, arguing that both sides could have worked together to arrive at compromise.

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

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

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

The state school board association on Thursday testified in opposition to a bill designed to overhaul the state’s public school accountability laws, arguing that a recently added provision has the potential to weaken local control.

The comments came during a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, a bill that state officials argue is necessary to replace the outdated and flawed laws enacted following the passage of No Child Left Behind. In the Senate, lawmakers added a controversial “financial accountability rating system” to the measure.

The school board association supported the legislation prior to the addition of the financial rating system, but ASBSD Executive Director Wade Pogany told lawmakers Thursday that the sudden move to broaden the accountability system has subverted the transparent process used to develop the original proposal and infringes upon the authority of local school boards.

Pogany raised questions about the purpose of the financial accountability rating system, telling lawmakers that the new provision looks similar to a Texas law that sets parameters on how school districts can spend district resources. Specifically, he aimed his arguments at components that may dictate administrative cost ratios or class size limitations.

“What you’ve just done, is that you’ve eliminated local control,” Pogany said. “That takes away all the discretion and all the work that school boards will do in the future.”

Pogany is also concerned that the new proposal doesn’t recognize the amount of financial reporting schools already do. School boards provide extensive information to the department of education and must comply with legally established accounting and auditing practices, he said.

Attorney Dick Tieszen, representing the Sioux Falls and Rapid City School Districts, also testified against the measure, arguing that the controversial component lacked input from education stakeholders and wasn’t properly vetted through a workgroup that created academic performance standards.

“If I were to suggest to you that tomorrow we should start a financial accountability system for legislators, wouldn’t you want to know why? Wouldn’t you want to know what the information is that I’m going to gather before we use it to rate you?” Tieszen asked. “I couldn’t imagine that you wouldn’t.”

During time reserved for committee questions, Education Secretary Dr. Melody Schopp defended the financial accountability rating system, saying that it will help schools identify financial best practices. She also suggested to lawmakers that the financial accountability system is a friendly amendment to Senate Bill 25.

Sen. Deb Peters, R-Harford, the amendment’s prime backer, told lawmakers that the system will help the Legislature figure out why some schools may not be able to produce the same achievement results with similar levels of education expenditures. Once the legislature has the data, the system will allow one school to “copy” another.

The committee endorsed the measure with the financial accountability rating system included.

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

There’s been plenty of talk about K-12 education this session, but critical discussions on per-student funding are just beginning to heat up.

The discussion will begin in earnest next week, as lawmakers receive the much-anticipated updated state revenue estimates, which will heavily influence whether lawmakers are able to provide additional per-student funding though the state aid formula. South Dakota public schools are still struggling to cope with a historic $52 million cut, and any funding provided this year will only work to lessen a second round of budget cuts that will likely be necessary as schools work to patch budget gaps.

Gov. Dennis Daugaard has proposed a 0.8 percent increase in per-student funding for next year, which includes $31 in one-time funding for FY13. As of this week, the governor’s proposal remains the only concrete option on the table, but it’s not the only option.

Prior to the critical crossover deadline, lawmakers passed several bills that have the potential to deliver additional funding, including HB 1136 and SB 138 – two bills that technically appropriate $1 to increase public school funding. A third bill, SB 139, also contains a $1 appropriation, but that bill is targeted to establish an ongoing grant for the Teach for America program, an initiative tied to a national program that provides teachers for hard-to-staff schools.

Two additional bills – SB 49 and HB 1093 – will also play into school funding decisions. The measures adjust property tax levies for the school district general fund, which typically move downward as property values increase. That issue has become more complicated in recent years, as agricultural assessments have changed, economic conditions have depressed valuations and lawmakers shifted more of the responsibility of the general state aid formula to local property tax payers.

It’s become common practice that school funding decisions are made on the final days of session, often in conference committee’s in the very last days of session. This year appears to be no different.

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

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

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

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

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

The South Dakota House of Representatives on Tuesday approved minor changes to the formula that delivers additional funding to districts serving sparsely populated areas. Lawmakers unanimously endorsed HB 1199, a measure that proponents argued would stabilize the sparsity funding formula.

During committee testimony, Rep. Dean Wink, R-Howes, the bill’s prime sponsor, said the measure will alleviate a “double hit” that isolated schools absorbed when the Legislature broadened state law to allow more schools to access funding allocated for sparse schools. The same year, lawmakers also capped the total appropriation for the categorical aid, meaning all qualifying schools received less.

Under HB 1199, schools can receive up to $110,000 in sparsity aid next year, but appropriators are now required to fund the formula in its entirety. According to stats from the South Dakota Department of Education, the most any school will receive in the current year is $105,000.

Officials representing three sparse schools testified in favor of the measure in committee, telling lawmakers that the state’s most rural schools need the additional resources to maintain quality public schools.

The proposal now moves to the Senate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The South Dakota House of Representatives approved Monday an amended version of HB 1234 on a 41-28 vote. As passed, the measure would eliminate continuing contract for new teachers beginning next year, mandate more regular and rigorous staff evaluation and enact two alternative teacher compensation programs in the coming years.

The bill was not changed dramatically on the House Floor, although several lawmakers suggested that the measure will undergo significant revision as it enters the South Dakota Senate.

Stay tuned to Open Forum for more information.

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

Members of Senate Appropriations unanimously endorsed a plan to provide one-time funding for the state’s public schools, sending the measure on to the full Senate for consideration.

The bill, filed as SB 192, represents the commitments Gov. Dennis Daugaard made in his budget address, including a $31 one-time per-student allocation for next school year and an $8.4 million, multi-year training program that will help defray the cost of implementing Common Core academic standards and new educator evaluation initiatives.

ASBSD Executive Director Wade Pogany testified in support of the bill. He walked appropriators through Costly Cuts, a publication detailing the impact recent cuts have had on the state’s public schools. He told lawmakers cuts have been implemented, school staff have been eliminated and schools are relying heavily on local property tax payers to stay afloat.

“There no doubt in my mind that schools are, and will continue to be, in a financial crisis,” Pogany said. “The hole is very deep, and school boards just need the flexibility to dig out of that hole.”

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

The move happened as legislators worked to reconcile two separate proposed anti-bullying laws, one proposed by Attorney General Marty Jackley and another advanced by Sen. Dan Lederman, R-Dakota Dunes. The two proposals differed in their approach; one included a clear mandate that applied to all schools and another that affected only schools that did not yet have a policy.

Sen. Bob Gray, R-Pierre, told committee members that he was tired of the issue coming back before legislators every year. He said schools that have yet to adopt a bullying policy haven’t gotten the message, and it was time for the Legislature to require a policy.

The committee adopted an entire rewrite of SB 130, including language that requires schools to adopt by Dec. 1, 2012, a bullying policy that includes a uniform definition of bullying. The law also sets forth minimum requirements that all policies must contain, but leaves details largely up to school board.

Sen. Tim Rave, R-Baltic, said the Legislature has discussed the issue long enough.

“Let’s get this done, get the schools to have a policy, and move on.”

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

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

• Legislators referred SB 139 to Senate Appropriations. The bill would create a grant to fund the Teach for America Program. The committee amended the bill to reduce the appropriation to $1, and will rely on appropriators to determine whether the program will be funded. ASBSD opposed the bill.
  
• Lawmakers changed then passed SB 130, a measure that now requires all school boards to adopt a bullying policy based on a state-established definition of bullying.
  
• Lawmakers passed SB 85, a measure that says schools will only receive small school adjustment funding for students that live within the boundaries of the district.
  

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

School boards will have greater flexibility to recruit, retain and reward teachers if lawmakers adopt a significantly amended version of Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s Investing in Teachers Initiative, ASBSD Executive Director Wade Pogany said Wednesday.

Pogany testified in support of the sweeping education reform proposal. Changes to the bill will give school boards more options to design compensation initiatives that reflect local needs, a provision Pogany said will address concerns raised by school boards across the state.

During his testimony, Pogany voiced concerns about a state-mandated teacher evaluation system, a component that remains in the bill. He said he was encouraged that Education Secretary Melody Schopp is working to develop ways to help local school boards implement the “off-grade” testing necessary to evaluate every teacher based on student test scores.

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

Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s proposed Investing in Teachers Initiative will get an initial public hearing Wednesday.

House Education Chair Rep. Tom Brunner, R-Nisland, announced Monday that the bill would be brought for consideration during the committee’s next regularly scheduled meeting, which begins tomorrow at 7:45 am. He also suggested he may have to convene a special meeting later Wednesday, possibly stretching the hearing into the afternoon.

ASBSD has prepared a detailed issue brief that explains the proposed law, which is available at: http://www.asbsd.org/page174.aspx.

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

South Dakota doesn’t need to establish a goal to guide education funding decisions, members of the House State Affairs Committee said Monday.

The decision came following public testimony on HB 1110, a bill that requires the state to work toward elevating public school funding to the surrounding state average. Rep. Bernie Hunhoff, D-Yankton, pitched the plan as a way for legislators to make sure the state’s education system can compete with neighboring states. The goal wouldn’t be binding, Rep. Hunhoff said, but it would give something the state “to shoot for.”

Tami Darnall, a representative from the South Dakota Department of Education, testified in opposition to the bill. She called the plan “unrealistic” and estimated the bill would cost the state more than $200 million. She told lawmakers that it’s important to set goals, but suggested that legislators should focus on setting goals for student achievement, not education funding. 

“More funding has not been proven to come out in student achievement,” Darnall said, pointing out that South Dakota outperforms other states that provide less funding for public schools.

Rep. Chuck Turbiville, R-Spearfish, voted to kill the measure. He said lawmakers set a goal each session to provide schools with as much as the state can afford.

The measure failed on a 9-2 vote.

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

Legislators turned away on Monday a plan to raise taxes to support the state’s public schools, arguing that the bill wasn’t needed because voters will get a chance to increase funding for education next November.

The action came during a public hearing on SB 120, a bill that would increase taxes during summer months for the next three years. The proposed law directs $30 million directly to South Dakota’s public schools, but the tax would expire in 2015.

Sen. Stan Adelstein, R-Rapid City, brought the legislation to correct what he said was a “very serious situation” occurring following recent cuts in state aid to education. He detailed education cuts that are being considered in Rapid City, saying essential services are going to be eliminated.

“I know we desperately need this $30 million,” Sen. Adelstein said.

Jim Terwilliger, a representative of the South Dakota Bureau of Finance and Management, testified in opposition to the bill. He said there’s never a good time to raise taxes, adding that the temporary tax will negate the progress made to eliminate the state’s structural deficit.

During committee action, lawmakers said a pending vote on a ballot initiative would answer the question of whether citizens want to increase funding to schools.

“If people don’t pass it, well then that sends a message that we don’t need it,” said Sen. Eldon Nygaard, R-Vermillion.

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

Members of Senate Education delayed action Tuesday on two separate bullying bills while they weigh whether or not to require all school boards to enact a local policy.

Following a hearing on SB 44, anti-bullying legislation pushed by South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley, legislators decided to hold action until Thursday, when Sen. Dan Lederman, R-Dakota Dunes, would be available to answer questions on SB 130, a law that was considered earlier this session. The two bills both address bullying, but differ in their approach.

According to Jackley, SB 44 encourages districts to adopt anti-bullying policies, but doesn’t include a mandate. School boards would have to use a model state policy only if the district doesn’t have a bullying policy in place. The proposal also makes it clear that no state law can intervene in a local district’s efforts to combat bullying.

Senate Bill 130, by contrast, will require local districts to adopt a policy by Dec. 1, 2012. The proposal outlines five broad principles that must be included in a district’s policy, but gives discretion to school boards to determine specific policy details. If passed, school districts would have to revisit policies to ensure they comply with a definition of bullying contained in law.

Lawmakers were concerned by results of a Department of Education survey that indicated that 12 school districts currently don’t have a policy prohibiting bullying. Given the attention paid to bullying in recent years, they questioned whether a law that encourages action will actually lead to district action.

ASBSD has testified in support of both bills.

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

School districts struggling to educate students with limited English skills may get financial relief if the state has money available, members of the House Education Committee decided Monday. The comments came during public testimony on HB 1152, a measure that would add a “Limited English proficient adjustment” to the state’s funding formula.

Legislators acknowledged that additional funding is needed to address the growing number of English-language learners, but they weren’t convinced money should come through the state’s education funding formula. The committee voted to send the bill to the House Appropriations Committee, a move they said would give lawmakers more time to determine whether funding is available.

“I think there is a real need here,” said House Education Chair Tom Brunner, R-Nisland. “The conversation certainly needs to be kept alive.”

Huron School Superintendent Terry Nebelsick and Business Manager Kelly Christopherson testified in support of the bill. Nebelsick outlined how the district has worked to accommodate the influx of English-language learners, including changes made to instructional programs, facilities and transportation services. The district is dedicating more than $400,000 in general fund revenue in addition to expenses from the capital outlay fund, Christopher noted.

Tami Darnall, a representative of the Department of Education, testified in opposition to the bill. She said that Huron is unique, and that not every district needs additional resources to educate limited-English students. According to Darnall, the funding formula already takes into account that some students are more costly to educate because it is based on average per-student expenditures. She also cautioned lawmakers against adding the provision because there would be no way to hold the schools accountable for how the money is spent.

ASBSD supports the bill.

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

In response to the governor’s proposed Investing in Teaching Initiative, your school board association has prepared a new issue brief titled “Teacher Quality, Teacher Compensation and HB1234.”

The document provides a section-by-section analysis of the bill, presents a concise overview of related research and summarizes related reform efforts that have existed or are underway in South Dakota. The issue brief is publicly available on our website at: http://www.asbsd.org/page174.aspx.

The governor’s proposal will have a dramatic impact on local schools and on the authority of local school boards to effectively and efficiently govern public school systems. We strongly encourage everyone to review this issue brief, and you are free to share it with anyone – including legislators – that you believe would benefit from a more thorough review of the issues.

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

A massive overhaul of the state’s public school accountability laws was expanded Thursday to include a new “financial accountability rating system” that lawmakers say will help schools operate more efficiently.

Legislators added the language to Senate Bill 25, legislation that houses the framework for a new statewide accountability system. The amendment, sponsored by Sen. Deb Peters, R-Hartford, is patterned after the School Financial Integrity System of Texas, or FIRST.

In Texas, the law encourages districts to manage financial resources in a way that provides the most money possible for direct instructional purposes, and was used initially to determine whether schools were spending at least 65 percent of district expenditures as classroom expenditures. The law requires districts to submit financial information to the state education department to assign districts to one of four financial accountability ratings, superior achievement, above-standard achievement, standard achievement or substandard achievement.

The amendment doesn’t detail how schools would be held accountable for academic performance, but it does grant the South Dakota Department of Education sweeping authority to define indicators of financial management performance. The new law would also “integrate existing academic accountability and financial data” and rank the state’s public schools based on the “relative performance of school districts.”

The amendment was proposed after the committee had closed the public hearing on the measure, and lawmakers nearly adopted the amendment before taking public comment. Mitch Ritchter, an education lobbyist, had to interrupt committee action to request an opportunity to comment on the new language.

ASBSD Executive Director Wade Pogany testified against the amendment. He asked what legislators were intending to accomplish and how they would measure effectiveness.

“What do you want from us?” Pogany asked. “I think it’s fair that we answer that question.”

Sen. Jeff Haverly, R-Rapid City, said he struggles with how schools spend their money and the state needs to bring uniformity to how districts spend their money.

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

The state collected a $12 million windfall because changes to the state aid formula weren’t implemented as the Legislature intended, members of the Senate State Affairs Committee learned Wednesday.

Sen. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, used a public hearing on Senate Bill 124 to explain circumstances surrounding last year’s cuts to the per-student allocation. In order to reduce Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s proposed 10 percent cut, Rhoden said lawmakers agreed to keep local property taxes level while cutting only the state’s share of the per-student allocation – a move that Rhoden argues should have resulted in a 6.6 percent ongoing cut to the per-student allocation.

During final-hour negotiations last year, lawmakers cut a deal with the executive branch to reduce ongoing per-student funding by 8.6 percent, allowing the state to realize a one-time savings of $12 million. To make up the difference, legislators provided schools with $97 in one-time money.

Rhoden said lawmakers only agreed to the proposal because they expected state officials to make the one-time allocation permanent before applying the annual inflationary increase in the next budget year. According to Rhoden, per-student increases should have been applied to a base number of $4,494.28. Instead, the governor’s proposed budget used a base number of $4,389.95.

“With the way this law was applied, there was roughly a $24 million savings by the property tax not being lowered,” Rhoden explained. “The way this has played out, education funding is only getting half that money. The other half is going on the state’s general fund bottom line.”

To ensure the law was implemented as intended, Sen. Rhoden said that lawmakers should use the higher per-student allocation as “a starting point” for education funding discussions this session. Applying the legally required 2.3 percent inflationary increase to the higher base number lifts the per-student allocation to $4,597.65 for FY13, approximately $106 higher than Gov. Daugaard has proposed.

Jason Dilges, the state’s chief budget officer, testified against the measure and pushed back against the notion that state officials didn’t properly apply the law. He said lawmakers shouldn’t be surprised by how the law was implemented and denied that the state received any benefits from the change. He cautioned lawmakers against adopting the bill because it would cost the state more than $15 million this year.

During time reserved for proponent rebuttal, Sen. Rhoden held strong to his contention that the law was incorrectly applied, telling state officials to examine public testimony from last year to better understand what lawmakers expected to occur.

“Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, they’re not entitled to their own facts,” said Rhoden. “You’re using the wrong PSA number with the adjusted Cutler-Gabriel percentage.”

Members of the committee endorsed the measure, but hedged on the notion that the measure would result in more funding for K-12 next year. ASBSD supports the bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The measure now moves to the Senate.

VOTE TALLY FOR HB 1195 

VOTING YES

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

VOTING NO

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

EXCUSED

Elliott, Munsterman, Olson (Betty)

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

The South Dakota Senate approved changes Tuesday to how electric cooperatives are taxed, a move that opponents argue will cut millions from public schools.

Currently, electric cooperatives pay a 2 percent gross receipts tax on the power sold to consumers. Under the measure, power providers will be taxed at a fixed rate per kilowatt hour sold.

Sen. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, asked lawmakers to support the change, arguing that it represents a necessary adjustment to existing tax laws. He said existing tax policy is no longer fair to electric cooperatives and consumers. According to Rhoden, the current gross receipts tax amounts to a 10 percent annual tax increase, adding later that the measure would reduce growth to approximately 4 percent.

For schools, the change means a drop in gross receipts revenue, funding that is delivered outside the state aid funding formula. While exact data detailing how the change will impact schools is difficult to determine and has not yet been made available, the change will limit the growth of gross receipts taxes.

Sen. Corey Brown, R-Gettysburg, spoke against the bill, saying he couldn’t justify voting to limit funding for public schools at a time when the state’s education funding formula doesn’t provide stable funding.

“This particular piece of legislation has the ability to take potentially millions of dollars and re-direct them away from our public schools,” he said. “At the end of the day, I think I’ve got to fall out on the side of students on this one.”

The measure passed on a 25-9 vote, enough to clear the two-thirds threshold required to change state tax policy. The bill now moves on to the House of Representatives. ASBSD opposes the legislation.

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