ASBSD Open Forum Blog News Feed

In case you didn't notice...Open Forum is down.

10/14/2008 10:18:08 AM

ASBSD's Open Forum blog is down - and has been down for several months - as we institute a redesign of ASBSD.org and the Open Forum blog. Thanks for your patience as we strive to improve our web site operations.

One note: the conversion will unfortunately have an impact on our archive. The categories must be re-coded for all our blog entries, and there's a few other details that we'll have to sure up.

Just in case anyone is wondering, though, we have not removed any content. In one case, we tried restoring the blog categories, and the system automatically updated the date of the orginal post. That post, which was dated Feburary 6, 2008, is still available, in it's entirety here.

Productivity measure, revenue caps pass committee

10/1/2008 6:14:18 AM

Approval by the South Dakota Senate is all that stands in the way of a major overhaul of South Dakota's property tax system - a change that will eliminate the effect South Dakota's 150 percent rule but may hamper school district budgets.

The Senate Taxation Committee gave approval Wednesday to HB 1005, legislation that would assess agriculture property based on the land's production value.

Sen. Dave Knudson, R-Sioux Falls, told committee members that changing how South Dakota assesses agricultural land is the right thing to do.

"I think fairness is the overriding theme," Sen. Knudson said. "To treat different types of property differently is not at all inconsistent with fairness."

Supporters of the productivity model agued that taxing land based on its production value will protect South Dakota's agricultural industry. A number of lobbyists representing various ag producers support the legislation. .

Opponents of the legislation say the bill ignores some land value. Rep. Novstrup, R-Aberdeen, told committee members that if HB 1005 passes, more than $12 billion in actual land value will not be fully taxed.

Rep. Norvstrup is prime sponsor of another proposal to revise the property tax system that would use market-based approach to assess all classes of property. That measure died in the House, and supporters failed Wednesday to gather the support needed to reconsider the measure.

After passing HB 1005, the committee took testimony on HB 1006 - a companion piece of legislation that places revenue caps the revenue school districts can collect from capital outlay, special education and pension funds.

Sen. Dave Knudson told committee members the legislation provides a safe harbor for school districts that lose valuation in the process.

Dick Tiezsen, a lobbyist representing Associated School Boards of South Dakota, was the only opponent of the legislation. He told lawmakers that the 150 percent rule is bad policy and needs to be eliminated, but it shouldn't be at the expense of school districts.

"While we fix the problem - and we agree that its time to fix it - we're concerned about placing an artificial cap on revenues from [the capital outlay, special education and pension funds]," Tiezen said. "There is a legitimate concern out there, by school districts, that this will have negative implications."

Knudson acknowledged that he had been working with Tieszen on possible amendments, but urged committee members to pass the bill out of committee. Once it's on the floor, he said, amendments can be offered to address the situation.

Sen. Sandy Jerstad, D-Sioux Falls, offered cautious support for the bill in committee, saying that she didn't want school district budgets to suffer as a result of the change and that she trusted amendments would be offered on the floor.

The laptop scuffle

5/27/2008 9:39:08 AM

Argus Leader reporter Terry Woster has legislative reaction to Gov. Mike Round's expansion of the Classroom Connections lap top program.

Open Forum said earlier that we had a feeling some legislators wouldn't be too happy with continuation of a program that they didn't fund, and the Argus brings us comment from a collection of lawmakers from both sides of the isle.

From the Argus:

"The Legislature again said it was not a priority with us," said Sen. Brock Greenfield, R-Clark. "We spoke with a voluminous voice."

... and ...
"The numbers don't add up, and it's just one more case of the bureaucrats misleading the Appropriations Committee," said Sen. Jerry Apa, R-Lead. "Some government agencies couldn't spell 'truth' if you spotted them the 'ruth.' "
... and ...
Sen. Jean Hunhoff, R-Yankton, said the governor has the authority to spend private money sometimes, but she is troubled by the incident.
"I am not comfortable with this," said Hunhoff, vice chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. "There was no communication after session. There should have been communication when they found they had funds remaining. ... A heads-up would have been nice."

Hunhoff and Sen. Julie Bartling, D-Burke, compared the issue to the ethanol tax.

"I support the laptops, but as with the ethanol tax fight, the Legislature said one thing, and the governor went ahead and did something else," Bartling said. "It's time we quit shrugging these things off."
Senate Democratic leader Scott Heidepriem of Sioux Falls said the laptop issue, the ethanol tax debate and a previous conflict over money for the Highway Patrol erode the ability of the Legislature and governor to work together.

"It seems like he's determined to ignore an entire branch of government," Heidepriem said. "It's not too late to put this relationship back together for the remainder of his term, and I hope we can do that. I'm willing to work toward that, but we really need to see a sign of good faith on his part."

And, when asked why the program continued despite the legislature not funding the expansion, Gov. Rounds provided justification.

"The message we got from the Legislature was, 'We approve of the concept, but we don't fully have the dollars for it. As long as we're not transferring dollars from the state-aid formula, we don't have an objection.' The House supported us on that. There were just some in the Senate who did not."

Hmm...

Attach price tag to mandates

5/19/2008 2:52:18 PM

Tightening budgets combined with expanding state and federal mandates are forcing local school board members to devote resources away from local priorities, three members of the Rapid City Board of Education told the South Dakota State Board of Education today.

In a letter to board president Kelly Duncan, which was hand-delivered Monday, school board members asked the state board to adopt a fiscal impact policy that would direct the Secretary of Education to outline any costs to comply with new policies, mandates or standards.

The policy would help educate the public on the costs of complying with state mandates, Rapid City Board of Education members said.

Rapid City Area Schools recently cut $2.3 million from their operating budget - a move that forced board members to choose compliance with mandates over music and library programs.

Read the Rapid City Journal coverage here.

Open Forum thinks the Rapid City Board of Education is on to something.

While it's true that each school district can calculate its own costs to comply with state and federal mandates, Open Forum thinks the state board should also consider costs as it weighs whether to implement further regulation on local districts.

Will a policy be drafted? Will the idea be decried as impossible? Time will tell. For now, Open Forum thinks it's a practical, common sense idea that could - at the very least - generate some discussion about how much budgetary authority our local school boards have.

For inquiring minds, here's the full text of the letter, which was co-authored by Eric Abrahamson (former Lieutenant Governor Candidate, current House candidate), Sheryl Kirkeby (current Board President and spouse to current State Representative Mark Kirkeby) and Wes Storm (member of the ASBSD Board of Directors).

May 19, 2008
Ms. Kelly Duncan
President
South Dakota Board of Education
700 Governors Drive
Pierre, SD 57501
Dear Ms. Duncan:
State and federal mandates, including the federal No Child Left Behind Act, have an enormous financial impact on local school districts. Threatened with the loss of state or federal funding, accreditation, or other sanctions, districts devote hundreds of hours of staff and administrative time to developing plans, providing training and implementing programs to meet these mandates, standards and required tests. In South Dakota alone these mandates cost local school districts millions of dollars.
Taxpayers and legislators in South Dakota deserve to know how much these mandates are costing them. We recognize that the State Board of Education is not responsible for mandates, standards and tests required by the federal government, but the Board and the Department of Education can help educate citizens, school board members, and legislators regarding the costs of these policies and mandates.
Therefore, we respectfully request that the South Dakota Board of Education adopt a fiscal impact policy that will require the Secretary of Education to provide the Board and the public with an estimate of what it will cost local school districts to comply with each new policy, mandate or standard proposed to the Board for adoption. This simple step will help all of us gain a better understanding of the investments we are making in the future of our children.

Scaled-back laptop initiative presses forward

5/15/2008 8:53:05 AM

South Dakota's laptop initiative lives on, according to a press release from the South Dakota Department of Education.

From the release:

"On the national front, the question surrounding learning with laptops is not if it will happen, it's when it will happen," said Gov. Mike Rounds. "Here in South Dakota, the K-12 laptop initiative will help to prepare students for a world in which access to information and technology is absolutely critical to economic health."
The scaled-back program for 2008-09 is expected to cost the state $770,000. Funding for the full program, estimated at $2.9 million, was cut during the 2008 legislative session. Expenses for adding the 15 new schools will be paid using Citibank funds.

Open Forum is all aboard the laptop initiative. We think putting computers in the hands of high schoolers is a good idea - whether the state helps out with the effort, or a local school board decides to enter the program independent of state support.

When the dust settles, the announcement is good news for South Dakota students. But the dust likely hasn't settled yet.

The announcement could stir another round of debate surrounding whether Gov. Rounds is defying the intent of the legislative body - the branch of government that decided to cut funding for the program last year.

The laptop initiative earned plenty of attention in 2006, when Gov. Rounds announced the Classroom Connections program along with his 2010 Education Initiative. That year, Gov. Rounds tried to secure funds for every high school in the state to participate. With legislative pushback, the program was quickly scaled back to a one-year pilot program.

In 2007, laptop funding was part of Gov. Rounds recommended budget. Legislators didn't turn the program away that year, though - most likely because the request only used private funds.

This past session, though, Gov. Rounds asked for nearly $3 million in state funds to fund the third year of the program. Tucked away as a line item in an amendment to the current year's budget - as opposed to being grouped in with the FY 09 budget and debated on its own merits - the laptop funds didn't survive.

Instead, legislators opted to use $3 million to provide an additional half-percent to the per-student allocation, with the hopes of further boosting teacher salaries.

Minnesotans: Save money, send your students to South Dakota!

5/14/2008 9:00:48 AM

There's good news and bad news coming out of Lake Benton, Minnesota.

On the positive side, Lake Benton Public Schools will send high school students to South Dakota's own Elkton School District next year. Lake Benton's junior and senior high school building was condemned and voters rejected a bond issues, leaving the district to look for other options.

The bad news? That the same article points out that the state of Minnesota saves $2,800 each time they send a student to South Dakota.

From the MinnPost:

Interestingly, with students' trek across the border, the Lake Benton district will end up making money on the deal, after paying the South Dakota educators tuition for each student, says Cornelius Smit, Lake Benton's interim superintendent.

"We still get the same funding formula per student and we pay the South Dakota tuition rate," Smit said. Turns out it's cheaper to attend school in the sister state because salaries and such are less expensive, Smit said.

Local and state taxes deliver about $8,000 in education funding per secondary student, while tuition at the Elkton school is only $5,250 per student.

That means nearly $2,800 per pupil funding will be available to supplement the cost of providing a good Minnesota education to Lake Benton's kindergarten through sixth-grade students.

Maybe districts bordering Minnesota should invest in some billboards. They could say: "35% off all educations."

We kid, we kid.

Sanford and St. Paul Public Schools

4/29/2008 9:56:24 AM

A gift from South Dakota philanthropist-in-chief T. Denny Sanford is stirring conversation in St. Paul, according to the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

Strapped for cash and needing to upgrade the gym floor, a booster club for St. Paul's Central High School asked Sanford for $100,000 to upgrade the facility. As a gesture of gratitude, the group offered to name the floor after Sanford.

With construction slated to start this summer, the community is starting to have a conversation about whether it's appropriate to name the floor after Sanford, who is a graduate of Central High.

From the Pioneer Press:

The school board and superintendent have yet to figure out whether the project - which got the go-ahead this month - sets a lasting precedent, but it has opened the door for the state's second-largest district to join the ranks of school systems nationwide that offer naming rights in return for gifts.
As long as the money doesn't come with strings attached or require schools to compromise their mission, school board member Tom Goldstein said, he wouldn't oppose to it.
"I guess I don't see it as that controversial a thing if we went that direction," he said, especially when districts are scrambling for new revenue sources. "We have real needs."
But board chair Kazoua Kong-Thao said she would oppose offering naming rights to big donors.
"Our schools are public schools. It is for the public usage," she said.
What happened at Central was an anomaly, Kong-Thao said, and she points out that new district procedures for naming areas within buildings - which the board is asking the superintendent to write but aren't complete - should focus on soliciting community input, not courting wealthy benefactors.

Like so many decisions that come in front of school boards, the situation involves competing public values. On one side of the fence is the group that worked to secure the donation. On the other side sits those who want to maintain a commercial-free student environment.

They're not talking about a black-and-white issue. No matter what the board decides, there will be critics.

School board members are elected to make these kinds of decisions. They're elected to carry the values of the community into the public school setting. It's not easy, but it is part of the job.

When faced with difficult decisions, board members should focus on putting the public in public education.

They should involve the major stakeholders and include some voices that have yet to be heard. When a decision is made, the board should justify its position, making sure to frame the entire debate for the community and taking special care to communicate that the board considered all angles before deciding.

When the outcome can't possibly please everyone, sometimes the best a school board can do is show the community that they listened carefully before acting.

Honoring academic excellence

4/28/2008 8:59:54 AM

Open Forum is all smiles today.

Later this morning, we'll head over to the annual ASBSD Academic Excellence Luncheon - a yearly event that affords ASBSD the opportunity to congratulate South Dakota's top students.

This year, more than 220 high school students will receive a well-deserved pat on the back for their academic accomplishments at the high school level. We've asked them to bring their parents and their high school principals to share in the celebration.

Gov. Rounds will be on hand to address the youngsters and to help hand out the awards.

Since 1990, ASBSD has worked with the governor's office to coordinate the luncheon, which serves as the only statewide academic recognition ceremony in South Dakota.

Of course, it wouldn't be possible without the generous support of our sports - Citibank and the South Dakota Community Foundation.

For more on the event, heck out the media advisory here, and the student list here.

NCLB Changes: Accountablity, transparency are focus

4/23/2008 11:56:58 AM

U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings announced proposed changes to the federal No Child Left Behind Act yesterday - a slate of administrative reforms that she said will strengthen accountability and provide parents more information on how to get their children help.

Read ED fact sheets on the changes here and here, and the press release here.

Secretary Spellings announced the changes, which include a uniform way to calculate graduation rates, from Detroit - home of one of the nation's most dramatic high school drop out rates.

The new graduation rate calculation stems from a National Governor's Association agreement signed by 45 states in July 2005. South Dakota originally signed on, but backed out of the compact shortly after.

The problem with the NGA method, South Dakota Education Secretary Dr. Rick Melmer said at the time South Dakota opted-out, is that it counts students who graduate in five years a drop-outs.

The proposed regulations will provide some needed flexibility - like allowing schools to count individual student progress and helping to recognize the difference between low-performing schools and schools that barely miss the mark.

The new requirements also mean states have to publish National Report Card data alongside state student assessment results. According to ED's fact sheets, the move will bring transparency to the assessment process (Open Forum translation: States that set the bar too low will be exposed).

No word on whether South Dakota's NAEP data will have to be reported by ethnicity, though - a move that could shed some light on why South Dakota's NAEP results aren't as good as South Dakota's citizens are led to believe.

While there's some progress in the new regulations, that doesn't mean everyone is happy about it.

From the New York Times:

Some education experts and lobbyists said the proposed regulations were so sweeping that they amounted to an effort by Ms. Spellings to amend the law through regulation.
"This is the boldest sidestep around the Congress that I've ever seen," said Bruce Hunter, a lobbyist for the American Association of School Administrators. "She's trying to rewrite the law without benefit of Congressional action. I'd be surprised if lawmakers let this go."
Bruce Fuller, a professor of education at Berkeley, said the graduation rate proposal and others amounted to "an imperious new set of mandates," while others seemed aimed at giving states the flexibility they have demanded in enacting the law. "The Bush administration is like an ambivalent big sister who doesn't know whether to scold or to nurture her younger siblings," Dr. Fuller said.

They're going to do it anyway (sort of)

4/22/2008 10:19:50 AM

According to the Washington Post, U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings will unveil on Tuesday a host of changes to No Child Left Behind - modifications that come via administrative regulations and not through the lawmaking process.

Perhaps today's news sheds some light on why the National School Boards Association is pushing lawmakers to revise NCLB this year.

Congress has struggled to reauthorize NCLB, the Bush Administration's chief domestic policy initiative. Presidential posturing and growing anti-NCLB sentiment has stalled progress, leaving some to wonder whether NCLB will be improved or simply scrapped.

Absent the political capital to push through changes to the law, Secretary Spellings seems poised to use administrative authority to usher in change anyway. Proposed changes are being opened for public input and are set for implementation in the fall.

The most publicized change calls on all states to calculate graduation rates the same way. Open Forum will update this post once the regulations are announced.

For one school board member's take on NCLB reform, check out Watertown School Board Member Fred Deutsch's School-of-Thought blog.