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

The report, titled Where We Stand: The Past, Present and Future of Per-Student Funding in South Dakota, shows how the actual growth in per-student education funding compares to inflation over time. The study also examines the gap between actual and adequate per-student funding, providing estimates of the investment necessary to ensure schools can meet state-mandated student performance expectations. The full report can be found online at: http://www.asbsd.org/page174.aspx.

Historically, per-student funding tracked closely with the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, an inflationary measure built into South Dakota’s education funding formula to ensure education funding at least keeps pace with inflation. However, the recent 8.6 percent cut to the per-student allocation has created a $54 million inflation gap that now means schools have much less purchasing power compared to when the state’s funding formula was fully implemented in 1998.

“In actual dollars, we already knew the dramatic cuts put schools back about five years,” said ASBSD Executive Director Wayne Lueders. “But in terms of purchasing power, schools are now far behind where they were 15 years ago.”

The report also concludes that South Dakota is now $233 million short of providing adequate per-student funding. The calculation was based on the $133 million gap identified in 2006, when a coalition of education groups released a research study that estimated the cost of educating a student in South Dakota.

According to Lueders, the state’s recent budget woes have continued to focus on education funding as a political question, rather than basing funding on what schools actually need to be successful.

“South Dakota is asking schools and students to meet high standards and expectations, but our lawmakers have yet to assess whether schools are given the resources to succeed,” Lueders said. “We need to start looking at education funding based on student needs.”

The inflation and adequacy gaps are projected to grow over the next 10 years if lawmakers don’t act to correct the trend. Estimates show the inflation gap growing to $72 million by 2022. Without action, the adequacy gap will grow to $309 million over the next 10 years.

Lueders believes the new report gives context to the historic cuts to public school funding by showing the impact on future school budgets.

“We believe it’s important that the public understands that the recent cuts to K-12 education will have a lasting impact on our public schools,” Lueders said. “If our state doesn’t act with urgency, we are in for another decade of annual school district budget cuts.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The budget battle in Washington, D.C., continues with the latest effort by Congressional Republicans to slash federal spending.

The one-week extension would prevent a shutdown of the federal government through April 15. In exchange for an additional week, House Republicans are asking for $12 billion in reductions. The cuts will trim $391 million from K-12 programs, including School Improvement Grants, the Safe Schools and Citizenship Program and Career and Technical Education.

According to a press release about the bill, cuts to federal public school funding would be a combination of rescission, reduction and program termination. The press release also says all the cuts were included either in previous House and Senate spending plans or in President Obama’s budget request.

The biggest line item reduction is eliminating unobligated balances from Title I, which would cut the Striving Reader’s program by $186 million.

Read the press release here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

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