The Argus Leader Editorial Board puts on its critic hat to question a move by the Sioux Falls school board.

While Open Forum thinks part of a newspaper's role is to drive discussions and encourage debate, we question the overall theme of the editorial.

Consider the headline and subhead. The headline reads: "The purpose of school is...?" The headline is followed by a subhead that says: "Sioux Falls school board should ask this question before voting on PE requirements."

Open Forum won't comment on the specific question raised in the editorial, but we'll gladly take issue with the Argus Leader suggesting, for some reason, that school board members don't have their finger on the role of public schools.

In reality, school boards continually balance the proper role of public education. Suggesting otherwise can be perceived as an insult, and is, in our view, irresponsible.

Make a commentary on the situation - that's fair game of any publicly elected board. Take a position, if you like.

But the Argus should stop short of creating a perception that school board members don't consider a school's ever-expanding mission to create school systems that are best aligned to meet student needs.

ASBSD will take more of a year-round approach to government relations and advocacy efforts, the ASBSD Board of Directors decided at the March 19 board meeting in Pierre.

"The most effective advocates take a year-round approach," said ASBSD Executive Director Wayne Lueders. "The new vision and structure will better position ASBSD to impact education policy."

Under the new Government Relations Plan, ASBSD will leverage feedback from the membership along with the continual input from a revamped Policy and Resolutions Committee (PRC) to develop priorities earlier in the year and allow staff more time to research supporting positions and develop supporting documents.

The PRC, which will be chaired by the ASBSD First Vice-President, will meet just after the legislature adjourns to discuss legislation and initiate discussions, then again in July after ASBSD members have given their feedback of legislative resolutions and standing positions.

Having had input from the committee and the membership, ASBSD staff can better research issues and present more robust rationale during the fall ASBSD Region Meetings for debate and discussion at November's Delegate Assembly.

The State Board of Education will hold a special meeting on April 11, 2007, to consider proposed rules for a teacher compensation assistance program passed this past legislative session. The Department of Education plans to have rules in place so applications can be approved by June.

The heart of the proposed rules - the stipulations on how the money can be used - make a clear statement that the funds are to be used for one-time enhancements for some certified personnel.

According to the rules, the funds must: be distributed to certified instructional staff only; supplement and not supplant local salary policy; and include matching funds.

The teacher compensation funds may not be used: for the purpose of providing substitute teachers; to contract with outside vendors for professional development services; to provide benefit payments to teachers; to provide base salaries for new personnel; and to equally divide compensation to all teachers in the salary schedule.

The proposed rules also, as many have anticipated, require that districts make a yearly application for the funds. Districts will also have annually prove that the funds have been used wisely.

The State Board of Education will also consider the composition of the oversight board that will review the application. As propsed, two members of the legislature, a school board member, school administrator, school business official, business leader and teacher would make up the review panel.

Once the rules have been approved, the Department of Education will make an application available to local districts. Along with the rules, a preliminary application is available on the DOE web site.

There's also a public comment area, which allows for feedback on the program.

Gov. Mike Rounds and Education Secretary Dr. Rick Melmer are sitting down with newspaper editorial boards to defend the state's support of K-12 education.

The Governor has already visited with the Rapid City Journal, Aberdeen American News, Mitchell Daily Republic, and KELO. The most pervasive message: the Governor and Legislature are not getting enough credit for the advances in education funding.

From the Mitchell Daily Republic:

"They did as much for K-12 education this year as has been done since the formula was created in 1995," Rounds said.

...and...

Rounds, his administration and some legislators say measures adopted this year will bring schools a 3.8 percent increase, plus a host of additional money outside of the formula, including $4 million to assist with raising teacher salaries.

...and...

Some school groups calculate the increase differently and say it's only 2.5 percent or less, which they view as a step backward in comparison to inflation. Wayne Lueders, executive director of Associated School Boards of South Dakota, is in that camp.

"Inflation is currently running at 4 percent," Lueders said recently. "Costs are rising faster than the increases the Legislature is providing."

The major sticking point is how the increase is calculated. In particular, the state is taking issue with the fact that the cateogrical programs - like the Teacher Compensation Assistance Program, the funding for career and technical education and funding the ESAs - aren't included with the increase.

As Open Forum has said before, it's not fair to all South Dakota taxpayers to include those categorical funds - they aren't guaranteed into the future and, as proposed, will only benefit some students, some school districts and some school district personnel.

With veto day coming on Monday, the discussion is bound to advance.

With so many changes being proposed to the education system, legislators spent hours debating the various issues.

As an observer, it was hard to ignore Sen. Scott Heidepriem, D-Sioux Falls. The former Republican legislator and now Senate Minority Leader leaned on his legislative experience and his knowledge of South Dakota history to deliver some of the most grounded, passionate arguments on behalf of education.

And you're in luck, because someone has taken the time to upload one of the memorable moments to YouTube.

During the first Senate floor debate on SB 157, Heidepriem offered and amendment to boost the index factor up another percent - to 5.3 percent. In his introduction of the amendment, Heidepriem said that South Dakota must change its mindset with respect to education funding.

A public school district in Florida is stepping in to save a charter school amid a public outcry that the schools were being mismanaged, the Orlando Sentinel Reports.

Brevard County School District is set to take over Explorer Elementary and Middle School - deemed one of Florida's most successful charter schools - just days after the entire charter board, two top administrators and two teachers resigned.

The resignations and subsequent take over were prompted by the release of the school's financial audit, which pointed our several "irregularities" including the failure to pay federal payroll taxes and spending money on payroll accounts for other purposes.

Following the audit, news also broke that several officials, including the charter's finance director, had criminal histories that included fraud.

A fromer Explorer board member told the Sentinel: "I think this could have been totally avoided if perhaps the School Board were to be more involved in the guidance and not just the auditing of charter schools. It's still taxpayers' dollars that are being invested."

Counterterrorism officials sent out a cautionary bulletin last Friday warning local police that members of extremist groups have signed up as school bus drivers in the United States, CNN reports.

From the Associated Press report:

Asked about the alert notice, the FBI's Rich Kolko said "there are no threats, no plots and no history leading us to believe there is any reason for concern," although law enforcement agencies around the country were asked to watch out for kids' safety.

...and...

But Homeland Security and the FBI "have no information indicating these individuals are involved in a terrorist plot against the homeland," it says. The memo also notes: "Most attempts by foreign nationals in the United States to acquire school bus licenses to drive them are legitimate."

Even though the report goes on to cite that most foreigners investigated were merely looking for employment and did not intend to use them as part of a terror plot, the idea reinforces the need for background check policies in school districts.

As school districts across the nation struggle to make ends meet, all sorts of interesting proposals have popped up recently - from turning sports programs into club activities and to implementing high-end health food concessionaires in high schools.

The most recent idea coming out of Las Vegas involves pushing the costs of holding detention on to partents.

Vegas-area schools say they are too understaffed to hold detention for poorly behaved students and are looking to the Las Vegas Legislature give the schools the authority to enact a fee structure to defray costs.

The proposal has the support of the two largest school districts in the state, but is getting mixed reaction from legislators.

In a move that some suggest may just be a political manuever to speed up the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, more than 50 Republican members of the U.S. House and Senate have offered up legislation to allow states to opt-out of NCLB's testing mandates.

Needless to say, the new legislation is being touted as a severe blow to the Bush Administration's signature education policy.

According to the Washington Post:

Some Republicans said yesterday that a backlash against the law was inevitable. Many voters in affluent suburban and exurban districts -- GOP strongholds -- think their schools have been adversely affected by the law. Once-innovative public schools have increasingly become captive to federal testing mandates, jettisoning education programs not covered by those tests, siphoning funds from programs for the talented and gifted, and discouraging creativity, critics say.

...and...

Under Hoekstra's bill, any state could essentially opt out of No Child Left Behind after one of two actions. A state could hold a referendum, or two of three elected entities -- the governor, the legislature and the state's highest elected education official -- could decide that the state would no longer abide by the strict rules on testing and the curriculum.

...and...

"Republicans voted for No Child Left Behind holding their noses," said Michael J. Petrilli, an Education Department official during Bush's first term who is now a critic of the law. "But now with the president so politically weak, conservatives can vote their conscience."

It's an interesting story - with all the political infighting and euphamisms for stinkiness. What do you think, though? Does testing give educators a valuable assessment tool, or does it just divert attention away from other areas?

The Forum is Open (that's going to be our catchy little sign-off that signals you to comment and generate discussion).

Just days after the Legislature left Pierre having clearly taken a step backward with respect to funding education, news of South Dakota school districts joining the adequacy lawsuit have cropped up in papers from east to west.

From the Agrus Leader:

Scott Abdallah of Sioux Falls said Wednesday that Avon, Dupree, Willow Lake and Milbank joined the effort. That means 68 school districts support the lawsuit, brought by the South Dakota Coalition of Schools and several parents of school students, he said.

"Representatives with the Coalition of Schools expect some of South Dakota's largest school districts will join the effort as early as next week,'' Abdallah said.

...and...

In a response issued by Attorney General Larry Long's office: "The state denies that the children of South Dakota are receiving an inadequate education.''

The response also said separation of powers bars the plaintiffs from bringing the case in an issue that was described as a "nonjusticiable political question.''

The state lawyer also said the Coalition of Schools lack legal standing to be in the case, and the parents named as plaintiffs lack the same standing except in the school district where their children attend or where they themselves pay taxes.

On the West end of the state, the Custer County Chronicle reports that the Custer School District recently voted 6-0 to join the adequacy suit.

Superintendent Dr. Tim Creal in his report to the board said he strongly recommended the district's joining the lawsuit.

"It is so disappointing and frustrating that they (the Legislature) will not take into consideration anything in the adequacy report," Creal said. "What they are touting as their increased funding for education turns out to be something like a 2.6 percent increase, and with inflation we will just continue to fall farther behind."

Gov. Mike Rounds signed SB 157 and HB 1171 Wednesday, putting the final seal of approval on a host of education reforms and and several categorical education enhancement programs.

ASBSD has provided a breakdown on the two pieces of legislation in our 2007 legislative summary, which you can find on our web site.

Is there a particular bill that you need a more detailed explanation? Want to know the impact on your school's policy manual? E-mail ASBSD Director of Communications Brian Aust and we'll make sure and address your request during our more comprehensive end-of-session coverage later this month.

The Rapid City Journal picks up where an Alliance for Education news release left off, tacking on local reaction to the legislature's education policy decisions this past session.

The headline reads: Small school districts lament lost money.

Legislators returned home from Pierre this week, proudly conferring to constituents that education was one of the big winners from the legislature's efforts. But, having had a few days to digest the legislature's work, school districts are starting to express their concerns about the lack of support for public education during the 2007 session.

From the Rapid City Journal:

“Not only are we not getting any increase, we’re actually getting a decrease,” New Underwood superintendent Julie Ertz said. “We’re not getting as much money on the small school factor, plus a decrease, plus taking away one-time money we got for two years out of the picture, we’re getting $133 less per kid.”

“It sounds good that they threw $14 million into the pot,” Ertz said, referring to supplemental funding for educational programs the Legislature rolled into HB1171, the educational enhancement bill. “That’s nice and all good, but how did they pay for it?”

Depending on enrollment, school districts will see only 1.6 to 2.5 percent increases in per-student funding, according to the Alliance for Education.

Small school districts take an additional hit because the Legislature reached back one year to freeze the small school factor at the 2006 level, which is 3 percent less than it was for this year.

“If they simply wanted to freeze the small-school factor at current levels, our smallest schools would be receiving an additional $873 per student next year instead of the $848 districts will receive,” said Christie Johnson, executive director of School Administrators of South Dakota.

A news release from the South Dakota Alliance for Education:

PIERRE - School district budgets will lose ground next year due to funding cuts and a high inflation rate, the South Dakota Alliance for Education announced Wednesday.

Legislators recently approved an additional $33 per-student above the 3 percent increase recommended in Gov. Rounds' budget, offering what legislators said was a 3.8 percent increase over the current year.

Members of the South Dakota Alliance for Education say those numbers aren't accurate.

"Depending on a district's enrollment, districts will only see between a 1.6 to 2.5 percent increase in per-student funding compared to the current year," said Donna DeKraai, president of the South Dakota Education Association.

DeKraai says the actual increase is lower than legislators are reporting because schools received an additional $54 per-student this year that wasn't carried over to next year. "Legislators left Pierre last year championing historic increases to public education," DeKraai said. "But, one of the first things they did this year was repeal those funds," she said.

A lack of support for increased education funding comes at a difficult time, according to Wayne Lueders, executive director of Associated School Boards of South Dakota. "Inflation is currently running at 4 percent," Lueders said. "Costs are rising faster than the increases the legislature is providing, putting South Dakota school districts further behind."

Increases below inflation are particularly disheartening, Lueders said, because state revenues will increase 6.8 percent next year. "We believe the state can afford to at least help school districts keep pace with inflation," he said. "Unfortunately, that's not going to happen this year."

The increase is even less for the state's smallest schools. Christie Johnson, executive director of School Administrators of South Dakota, says small districts will only see a 1.6 percent increase in actual dollars because legislators opted to cut additional funding provided through the small school factor.

Freezing small school funding became one of the most controversial topics of the legislative session. According to Johnson, the debate over whether to lock the value of the small school factor overshadowed the fact that the legislature was actually cutting funding.

"They cut it before they froze it," Johnson said. "If they simply wanted to freeze the small school factor at current levels, our smallest schools would be receiving an additional $873 per student next year instead of the $848 districts will receive as a result of the 2007 session," she said.

If the freeze wasn't put in place that amount would have grown to $906 per student next year.

The South Dakota Alliance for Education is an umbrella education advocacy group made up of Associated School Boards of South Dakota, School Administrators of South Dakota, the South Dakota Education Association, ESD+6 School Districts, the Mid-sized Schools Organization and the South Dakota Coalition of Schools.

On the heels of a Rapid City Journal article that explored the difficulties of staying competitive with teacher salaries in Wyoming, news came down regarding an Iowa plan that will add another $174 million directed toward boosting average teacher salaries by $4,000 over the next two years.

Increasing state aid to education so districts could afford to pay teachers a competitive wage was an the main argument supporting an Alliance for Education plan to increase the state aid index factor to 4.3 percent.

The measure passed the Senate, but stalled in the House of Representatives.

Instead, compromise legislation offeres a $4 million that will allow districts to give some teachers one-time bonuses over the next five years.

So, if you're keeping score: Iowa, $174 million; South Dakota, $4 million.

The Argus Leader has already handed out grades for the 2007 Legislative Session. Here is what they said for education funding:

ASBSD has complied a summary of legislation passed during the 2007 session, which can be found in the Key Documents section of ASBSD.org.

In addtion to this summary, ASBSD will publish another document once all the bills have been considered by Gov. Rounds.

Legislators and state officials, with an admittedly stronger bully pulpit, are pitching an eye-popping $31 million in new money for education this session. Large numbers with lots of zeros work their way into the mind of the average South Dakotan, making it seem as though public education was a big winner this session.

Talking about "new money" in the aggregate, in a look-at-all-that-money fashion, takes attention away from a couple of key points.

The staggering numbers do not represent money that will benefit all students. In fact, only about two-thirds of the "new money" the legislature came up with this year is guaranteed to go to all districts. The rest is dished out in categorical funding that only will benefit some schools, some teachers and some students.

To make the proverbial apples-to-apples comparisons that are necessary to inform the public about the actual amount of funding every district will see, it's more appropriate to talk about per-student funding.

And even that gets complicated.

One number that has been flying around - that schools will see a 3.8 percent increase next year - is easier to justify than others. After all, the percent increase in base per-student funding from 2007 ($4,364.85) to 2008 ($4,528.80) is, in fact, a 3.8 percent increase.

This year, though, districts actually received about $4,418.85 per student - $54 more than the 2007 base ($4,364.85). The extra $54 per-student came about after the legislature decided to provide about $6.5 million in additional education funding last year.

If the yard stick is actual per-pupil funding from one year to the next, schools will receive a 2.5 percent increase next year. The 2.5 percent increase represents actual per-student funding this year, $4,418.85, to the actual per-student funding next year, $4,528.80.

For South Dakota's smallest schools, that increase is even lower.

Much of the talk surrounding "freezing the small school factor" this year overshadowed what the legislature was actually doing. They didn't just freeze the small school factor, they also slashed the value. In other words, they cut it before they froze it. Here's an example.

To determine the value of the small school factor, the base per-student allocation is multiplied by 0.2, with the product added on to the base per-student allocation. For example, the value of the small school factor for the current year is calculated like this: $4,364.85 + ($4,364.85 x 0.2) = $5,237.82.

When the legislature changed the value of the small school factor this year, they did not base the "freeze" on the current per-student allocation of $4,364.85 - they based it on the 2006 per student allocation of $4,237.72, which is a cut to the small school factor. For next year, the calculation will look like this: $4,528.80 + ($4,237.72 x 0.2) = $5,376.34.

When figuring in additional per-student funding from last year and the cut to the small school factor next year, districts with enrollments below 200 will only see a 1.6 percent increase in actual dollars from a year ago.

For school districts with enrollments between 200 and 600, the actual increase is somewhere between 1.6 and 2.5 percent.

Whether state officials profess a 3.8 percent increase or the education community talks about a 2.5 percent bump, one fact remains: any increase offered this year is below inflation.

The consumer price index, the inflationary factor that the state uses as a gauge to determine state aid increases, is 4 percent. No matter how anyone slices it or spins it, school district budgets will lose ground to inflation this year.

And that's the bottom line.

The Rapid City Journal has the story on some political cannon fire stemming from some late-session politics in the House of Representatives.

An exerpt:

On Tuesday, Hargens readily acknowledged what he wanted. In return for Rhoden’s support on more aid to schools, Hargens offered to persuade members of his own caucus to support the property-tax measure.

“I had people in my caucus who weren’t really supportive of 173,” Hargens said. “I think we could have had the votes to pass 173 if he could have come across a little better on education.”

Hargens said it would have been a fair trade because the property tax measure carried a greater benefit for the “short-grass” ranchers west of the Missouri River. “Some of my guys would have taken a hit on it,” he said.

... and

After Rhoden refused to deal, however, Hargens voted against the property tax measure, which lost 40-30 in the House, with 17 of 20 Democrats voting against it.

With Republicans in the House of Represenatives sharply divided over the property tax measure, votes of Demoractic representatives became key to the success of legislation that would have changed the way South Dakota assesses ag property. The measure was billed as a long-overdue way to phase out the 150% rule that has caused serious distortions in our property tax system.

The Democratic caucus, suddenly enjoying some freqenetly-held influence, opted to try and leverage some political capital to further an education funding proposal to incrase the index factor to 4.3 percent.

Republican Majority Leader Larry Rhoden, suddenly confronted with having to practice give-and-take politics, wasn't in the mood to deal.

So, both measures failed. No long-term solution to the 150% rule. No long-term solution to educaton funding.

In case you missed the March 1 edition of the Rapid City Journal, you can find their analysis of how the erosion of teacher pay has impacted West River schools.

The article came just days after an Alliance for Education press release about the compelling testimony our state's business leaders delivered to the House State Affairs Committee.

Members of the House of Representatives had three chances Friday to support increasing the index factor to 4.3 percent - all came in the form of roll call votes on floor amendments.

ASBSD has entered the results of two of those votes - one to restore the bill back to its original form and one to add the Alliance-supported funding mechanism - into the ASBSD Bill Tracker so members can see how legislators voted on the issue.

Look for the "SB 157 cr" and "SB 157 co" entries in the ASBSD Bill Tracker, then click on "click to view history" at the right to pull up the bill's history and the link to view votes.

After a final flurry of negotiations and a special Saturday session, the Legislature is one vote away from putting the final stamp on two bills that represent a series of education reforms and $9 million in funding for several enhancement programs.

When the dust settles, schools will receive a 3.8 percent increase through the formula - a figure that falls just short of CPI inflation factor, which is currently 4 percent.

The addtional $33 per student was offered as part of SB 157 - the legislation that ultimately ended up being more of a reform bill than a funding vehicle.

The addtional funding, an increase in the per-student allocation to $4528.80, was offered to offset the approximate $25 per-student cut in small school funding that results from locking the small school factor at 2006 levels.

Senate Bill 157 includes provisions that will force consolidation for districts with enrollments below 100 - a compromise position between the Senate, which passed legislation without a minimum school size, and the House, which favored a limit at 130 students.

Taken together, SB 157 and HB 1171 include several reforms and cateogorical funding for education enhancement programs, including:

• Relief for districts with increasing and decreasing enrollments;
• An increase in consolidation incentives;
• $4 million for a teacher compensation assistance program;
• $1.5 million for career and technical educaiton;
• $1.7 million to restore the cuts made to the Education Service Agencies.

The small school factor will remain in place but will not continue to grow, members of the South Dakota Legislature decided Saturday.

The issue was part of a package of reforms that resulting from a two-year study of school that was completed prior to legislative session. A conference committee ultimately built the language into SB 157 - which, coincidently, was the bill number assigned to the 2005 legislation that created the State Aid Study Task Force.

Freezing the small school factor was presented as a compromise position to eliminating the small school factor completely.

"There was very strong support from the education task force to phase out the small school factor in total," Sen. Dave Knudson, R-Sioux Falls, told the Senate. "I honestly believe that if we freeze the small school factor, it will take that issue off the board," he said.

Rep. Phyllis Heineman, R-Sioux Falls, told the House that locking the small school factor at 2006 levels protects small schools. "I think we've really honored the small school tradition," she said. "We're going to continue to offer those small schools an $848 per student increase."

The issues still caused some division, and neither chamber endorsed the plan completely. The Senate passed SB 157 on a 21-14 vote and the House approved it by a 37-30 margin.

A plan to increase the annual growth rate for state aid to education stalled because of lack of support in the House of Representatives, members of the Senate said as they were considering a conference committee report.

"The conference committee recognized the resistance of the House of Representatives to a 4.3 index factor," said Sen. Dave Knudson, R-Sioux Falls. The House had a chance to consider a bump in the index factor, Knudson said, but chose not support it. "I do not believe they got more than 25 votes," Sen. Knudson told members of the Senate.

The House State Affairs Committee stripped the index factor increase from SB 157 before sending the measure out of committee. From the House floor, a series of amendments would have restored the 4.3 percent annual increase.

Rep. Ed McLaughlin, R-Rapid City, asked the body not to adopt any amendments. "I would urge you to resist all new amendments," McLaughlin said, saying the concept would be better served in a conference committee.

Opponents contended that the state could not afford a permanent increase to the index factor.

Rep. Mike Buckingham, R-Rapid City, said the state's obligations in other areas are too great to sustain a larger for increase for schools. "We're going to set up a conflict between protecting our elderly's healthcare and funding our education budget," said Rep. Buckingham.

After three consecutive amendments to offer a 4.3 percent index factor failed on the House floor, the body passed the measure, ensuring the issue would be settled by a two, three-member panels from each chamber.

When the assignments were made, it appeared the conference committee was stacked in favor of pushing the concept of a higher index factor. A majority of the committee - three members from the Senate and one member from the House - had previously backed the index factor increase.

The strength of the opposition in the House, though, caused Senators Dave Knudson and Ed Olson to abandon the concept, and the committee discarded the concept on a 4-2 vote.

"There is no way you are going to move the House," Sen. Ed Olson, R-Mitchell, said during the floor discussion on the conference committee report. "Absolutely no way."

The Senate and House came to terms on K-12 education reforms Saturday but did not find agreement on the bill that appropriates funds for several education enhancement programs.

The Senate did not concur with a conference committee report on HB 1171, falling just short of the 24 votes needed to pass a bill that makes an appropriation. Democratic members of the Senate voted not to adopt the compromise in hopes of going back to the negotiating table.

The House adopted the conference committee report on a 46-23 vote.

The two chambers did agree to freeze the small school factor and to establish a minimum school size. The two items were part of the conference committee report on SB 157, which was adopted 21-14 in the Senate and 37-30 in the House of Representatives.

Senate Bill 157 also offered a $4 million bump to the per-student allocation, but because it did not actually appropriate the funds, the bill does not require a two-thirds vote. The bill also contained a number of other reforms, including addtional funding for districts with fluctuating enrollments and increased consolidation incentives.

Senate will convene at 4:15 p.m. today to consider the conference committee report on SB 157, HB 1082 and HB 1171.

The amount and distribution of funding seems to be the sticking point between the Senate and House. The Senate has held firm on it's belief that the index factor should increase to 4.3 percent. The House doesn't favor the change.

The two bodies are in agreement that some mechanism to help increase teacher salaries should be offered, but the Senate and House still need to compromise on the kind of strings attached to a teacher compensation assistance program. The Senate wants districts to be able to create a five-year plan, with funding following. The House wants a series of one-year plans.

Certain education reforms are also still in flux, including freezing the small school factor and establishing a minimum school size.

Both the Senate and House have passed out bills that provide funding for districts with increasing or decreasing enrollments and to double consolidation incentives.

There's been less talk, of late, regarding the equalization of other revenues - but the issue isn't off the table, either.

House Bill 1171 wil join SB 157 and HB 1082 in a conference committee, the House of Representatives decided Saturday.

All new education funding and reform are now in the hands of the six-member committee made up of three Senators and three Representatives.

Going to bat for the Seante: Sen. Dave Knudson, Sen. Scott Heidepriem and Sen. Ed Olson.

Playing defense for the House: Rep. Tom Deadrick, Rep. Larry Rhoden and Rep. Dale Hargens.

A bill that was touted as a way to rid the state of the impact of the "150 percent rule" died on the House floor Friday.

Senate Bill 173 would have changed how agricultural land was valued, then rolled that value into the assessment process over the next five years. The legislation died on a 30-40 vote.

Opponents argued that the legislation amounted to a tax shift from agriculture to businesses and homeowners, and that ag value would be calculated unfarily and arbritrarily.

Just before the Legislature concluded their work Friday, each chamber appointed conference committees to negotiate the details of the education funding and reform package that the Legialsture will ultimately pass out this year.

From the Senate, Senators Knudson, Heidepriem and Olson will try to advance the Senate's position that the state should offer a 4.3 percent increase on the index factor.

From the House, Representatives Deadrick, Rhoden and Hargens will try to advance the House agenda that provides minimal increases above what Gov. Rounds recommended.

After rejecting a series of amendments that would put the bill back in its original form, the House passed their version of SB 157 on to the Senate, setting up possible conference committee action.

The House version lacks the heart of the legislation - an adjustment of the index factor that governs how state aid to education grows.

While the Senate has passed a bill that will give the House another opportunity to consider the increase to 4.3%, many House Republicans suggested that education funding is headed to conference committee.

Rep. Paul Dennert, D-Columbia, offered an amendment to halt the freeze on the small school factor.

Dennert said the small school factor was originally offered as a way to pass changes to the funding formula in 1995. If the legislature starts reducing the value of the small school factor, it will hurt small schools.

Rep. Heineman, R-Sioux Falls, offered the opposition to the amendment. Heineman said freezing the small school factor was a recommendation from the state aid study task force that completed its work prior to session.

The amendment failed 30-40.

Rep. Burt Elliot offered an amendment to simply increase the index factor to 4.3 percent without any other requirements.

Rep. Larry Rhoden again opposed the amendment, this time countering the argument that there are reserves available to fund increases with out raising taxes.

Rhoden said using reserves offers ongoing revenue to the state, and it's unwise to spend reserves. "Talk about killing the goose that laid the golden egg and eating it for dinner," he said.

The amendment failed 22-48.

Rep. Maggie Gillespie, D-Hudson, offered an amendment to simply increase the index factor to 4.3 percent.

Rep. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, said raising the index factor is irrespoinsible, suggesting, just as Rep. Buckingham did, that medicaid presents too much of a responsibility.

Several opponents suggested that the state would have to raise taxes in order to pay for the increase to the index factor.

Rep. Gillespie challenged that notion. With nearly a billion dollars in reserves, Gillespie told the members that talk about raising taxes is shocking.

The amendment failed 24-46.

Rep. Dale Hargens, D-Miller, has offered an amendment to restore SB 157 into the form passed out by the Senate.

The amendment would have increased the index factor to 4.3 percent, and removed several contraversial reforms.

Rep. Mike Buckingham told the body that the bill sets up a conflict between funding medicaid and funding K-12 education. "I just think there are circumstances that are easily forseen where we can not meet the expectation," he said.

The amendment failed on a party line vote.

The House of Representatives has started debate on SB 157. There are a number of amendments that will be attempted.

Open forum will have blow-by-blow coverage.

Saying that the legislature would be delegating too much of its authority to the executive branch, the Senate turned down legislation Monday that would establish a program that would help districts build suitable facilities.

House Bill 1141 didn't contain an appropriation, but opponents argued that legislation lacked provisions on how to fund the program and how districts would qualify. They said the Legislature, not the executive branch, should develop rules for the program.

Sen. Ed Olson, R-Mitchell, told the Senate that the bill was offered to handle a problem discussed by the state aid task force but not addressed in the "omnibus" bills that resulted.

The task force was sympathetic to districts that didn't have enough taxable valuation to build suitable facilities, Olson said, but the group couldn't come to an agreement on how best to solve the problem.

The House sponsor of the bill, Mike Buckingham, R-Rapid City, told the House Education Committee that the bill was drafted to allow time for the state to get the handle on the issue before devoting dollars.

Senate Majority Leader Dave Knudson, R-Sioux Falls, said it would be a mistake to pass the legislation without some sort of funding attached. "This is a bill that creates a false promise," he said.

An ASBSD-backed bill to clarify statue relating to how school boards take action is on its way to Gov. Rounds after the House of Representatives passed the measure Thursday.

Senate Bill 101, which passed through the Senate with no opposition, allows school boards to determine how to best handle rare situations where conflicts-of-interest would prevent the board from conducting business.

A statute requiring a quorum vote - or a vote of the majority of members elect - was repealed in 1995, resulting in confusion on how action can be taken. Some districts retained the quorum vote practice, some moved to a majority of members voting.

The bill won't change how any school board currently operates.

The addition to statute reads:

A majority of the members of the school board constitutes a quorum for the purpose of conducting business. Any board action may be taken if it is approved by the majority of the members voting.

Because the legislation uses the word "may" instead of "shall", school boards have the option of enacting a local policy to determine how to handle situations where board members must abstain from voting in conflict-of-interest situations.

The Senate reaffirmed their commitment Thursday to increase the annual rate at which state aid to education grows by amending language into a House bill to increase the index factor to 4.3 percent.

It's the final days of session, which means in-and-out public action and plenty of private caucus meetings and chamber-to-chamber compromises.

Open Forum will deliver information as it happens.