It's only mid-September and the jockeying for the FY 09 state general fund is already underway. We'll take a look at some of the competing interests over the next few days.

Today, Open Forum looks the Board of Regents' request.

The state Board of regents is asking for 25 percent more general fund dollars this year, according to a report from KELO.

In total, the governing board of South Dakota's public universities will ask for an additional $44 million next year, bringing the total request up to $218 million. Twelve million is earmarked as one-time funds to cover the costs of upgrading computer and internet systems on university campuses.

The remaining $32 million, which would represent the state's ongoing commitments to public higher education, constitutes an 18 percent single year increase.

An excerpt from the Board of Regents' news release:

The South Dakota Board of Regents has finalized a FY09 budget request to Gov. Mike Rounds calling for greater state investment in the base budgets of the public universities.

"This budget request reflects the priorities of the regents and Gov. Rounds' 2010 Initiative," Regents President Harvey C. Jewett said. "It focuses first on maintaining the base budgets of the institutions. Secondly, it meets the universities' needs for a contemporary technology environment for instruction and research. Finally, it addresses our need to build university research capabilities, as well as fund significant upgrades to our science and engineering labs."

The regents approved a request for slightly over $10.1 million-or about 6 percent-in new base operating budget needs for the public universities. This would cover operating expense and utility funding shortfalls, ongoing utility cost increases, bonding for critical maintenance and repair projects, and faculty salaries. "We will ask state government this year to cover all of our normal salary increases, as it does for other agencies, so that this cost is not placed on the students," Jewett noted.

Regents President Harvey Jewett, an Aberdeen resident, goes on to say that the funding request, and particularly the resources marked for university research, comes at a critical time.

"This is a defining moment in time. The deep underground lab project at Homestake and new investments in health care and medical research made possible by Denny Sanford's donation have positioned South Dakota to become a major player in the knowledge-based economy," Jewett said.

"People will expect public higher education to partner in these endeavors. But we will need substantial new investments in our people, in cutting-edge technology, and in our facilities to make this happen."

All in all, it's a hefty sum to request - but the political timing could not be better. It will be interesting to see how much of this request makes it into Gov. Rounds' recommended budget. Stay tuned.

As they debate changes to the five-year-old law, Congress needs to consider how their actions impact local school boards and school districts, NSBA Associate Executive Director Michael Resnick told the U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor on Monday.

"If I leave you with just one overall impression today, I hope it is this: in moving forward with the reauthorization this year, we urge you to heed the lessons learned during the implementation of the current law," Resnick said during his testimony on the Miller-McKeon discussion draft to reauthorize NCLB. "This comprehensive draft, eve with the best intentions, will produce unintended consequences."

After offering praise for parts of the proposal, including the provisions that move NCLB away from one-size-fits-all approaches, Resnick was careful to point out portions that may place new burdens on school districts.

From NSBA's testimony:

In some ways the draft suggests an exchange to focus assistance and sanctions on the neediest schools for an expansion on management and process duties on many others. In so doing, the draft adds many new requirements, including significant process, data collection and reporting requirements for schools and districts.

No one, least of all our students, will be well served if their schools are overwhelmed by increased data and reporting requirements, especially with the numerous other changes this bill would bring. For example, as states adopt growth models, develop detailed data systems, design new standards and assessments, and enact new interventions, local districts will need to make significant adjustments to their curriculum, instructional materials, professional development programs, and more.

We are concerned that the sum total of these process and substantive requirements, some occurring simultaneously, will substantially complicate general understanding of the revised law and its actual implementation.

Eduwonks are all aflutter a week after Rep. George Miller, R-California, released a discussion draft of his bill to reauthorize No Child Left Behind.

Miller, chair of the House Education and Labor committee, teamed up with the panel’s top Republican, Buck McKeon, R-California, to offer what they say are essential changes to the law (diehards can read the 435 page draft, but most will find the 14 page summary most useful).

Check out eschoolnews’ recap of the Miller-McKeon legislation. There’s plenty of analysis so far, and Open Forum didn’t have much trouble finding various takes on the issue. But we’ll point you to The Quick and the Ed, who says tinkering with NCLB’s accountability system amounts to an expansion of the program.

It’s an interesting opinion. Adding flexibility to the law, which is something ASBSD supports, means people in Washington, D.C., will have to write more laws. In that regard, it’s an expansion of the program, despite any effects it will have to help identify truly struggling schools.

A group of 36 South Carolina school districts are asking the state's highest court to review a 2005 school finance decision that school officials say failed to address the needs of all students.

Read more about the original ruling in The State. An excerpt:

Retired Circuit Judge Thomas W. Cooper Jr. concluded South Carolina provides most school-age students with an opportunity to receive a "minimally adequate education" but should do more to help preschoolers and early elementary-age children.

In July, he upheld that decision.

Superintendents said they appreciated Cooper's ruling in terms of early education, but said the ruling failed to address older, inadequate buildings, funding to attract and retain teachers to poorer districts, and resources for students older than third grade.

"It's really not fair to the local taxpayers to have to have the full burden of addressing the needs that should be the state's (responsibility)," said Rose Wilder, Clarendon 1 superintendent.

If you read carefully, you noticed that the State of South Carolina is also appealing the decision. They believe the lower court exceeded its authority by ordering lawmakers to spend more on early childhood education.

Open Forum, our own humble addition to the blogging community, is focused on K-12 education. From time to time, when the political blogs dip into education issues, we might add our thoughts to the discussion.

And there's something coming from the South Dakota War College that warrants our attention.

The War College is taking aim at mandatory drug testing in public schools. SDWC sees an infringement on student and parents rights, and labels mandatory drug testing as "nanny state" policy.

The War College is entitled to an opinion. But Open Forum thinks SDWC is mixing issues - applying an articulated stance on mandatory drug testing to a voluntary program recently started in Aberdeen. Aside from that, they're stirring up a fuss.

If you've been keeping track of the Aberdeen drug testing program, you'd know how the district designed a voluntary program that gives parents a tool to help prevent drug abuse.

Parental Choice

There is evidence that some Aberdeen community members like the voluntary drug testing program. After all, people in the community have chosen to use the public service.

This particular public service, offered by a public school district, may help prevent kids from abusing drugs. It may help bring parents and kids together to talk about the dangers of drugs - and not just the dangers of getting caught with drugs. It could help a student - one that made some bad choices - to get the support and help they need to stay away from drugs.

It's about helping every child reach their full potential. News flash - school districts care about kids.

Parents care about kids, too. There's no substitute for an involved parent - and public schools understand that. The Aberdeen School District understands that, too. Parental choice is the heart of Aberdeen's voluntary drug testing program

Parents have the choice to enroll their children in the program. The student list is turned over to a private medical facility, which notifies parents if a student's name is randomly selected. At that point, parents have another chance to decide whether to go through with the test. The school won't know the results - or which students are tested - unless the parents want the school to know.

The Aberdeen School District has provided parents - those that want it - with a tool to help prevent students from using drugs. The district facilitates, but does not force.

When you look through the lens of public policy, it's a wonderfully orchestrated compromise that threads the needle between by filling a demand for a public service while allowing for parental choice.

Ahead of the Game

Now that the program has been successfully launched, the school board is asking the community to weigh in on the scope of the current program.

It's a good time to have the discussion, because there's a national conversation taking place.

There is a real dialogue in several states about mandatory drug testing for athletes - a notion aimed at wiping out performance-enhancing drugs.

Florida, for example, just enacted a one year pilot program, backed by Republican Gov. Charles Crist, that mandates random drug tests for student athletes. In Florida, each test costs $175. Mandatory programs are underway in Texas and New Jersey, too.

In that context, it's easier to understand why, after a successful voluntary program launches in Aberdeen, someone might wonder whether the program should be expanded.

Of course, Aberdeen's program wasn't intended to be far-reaching. There's a huge difference between Aberdeen's voluntary program and the mandatory programs in larger states. It's an entirely different issue, and requires an entirely different discussion.

Aberdeen's voluntary program is new - it's still fresh in the public's mind. There's no better time to ask for the public's opinion. So the school district scheduled a panel discussion.

There are a number of issues involved - including student and parents rights. The cost of the program should be reviewed. People should have an opportunity to discuss the topic in an open meeting. So, the school district scheduled a panel discussion.

The Aberdeen School District understands their greatest resources are the students, parents, staff and community. They know they should make an effort to hear the thoughts, views and concerns of those audiences. So, the school district scheduled a panel discussion.

Student representatives are coming to the table. The PTA is coming to the table. Staff representatives are coming to the table. It's a public meeting, and anyone can attend. The school district scheduled a panel discussion... to listen.