South Dakota Voices Response: Bryan, thank you for joining the discussion and sharing your concerns.
Email comment from BK: "Yes...millionaire MAGA loyalist Toby Doeden has a war chest of throw away candidates who he bought and paid them the bring extreme legislation like HB 1201 too the table and to try to do away with a functioning medical cannabis program that works for South Dakota. He makes these young politicians look like fools at his own expense...all in the interest of hoping that they will accept his $$ for the next election. I've been saying it for many years. We need $$ out of politics completely."
Money in politics is a huge problem. When incumbents have millions of dollars it is very hard to defeat them. The worst thing that ever happened was the Supreme Court decision on citizens united. It allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in races which gives an advantage to corporations over the regular citizen. When billionaires like Elon Musk can set up their own pack with millions of their own money and steer that pac money to one candidate it buys them a lot of influence. There should be a limit on what candidates can spend. Give each candidate the same budget and see who can run the better campaign- it will give you an idea how they can manage a budget
First step is limit political contributions to people who are US citizens. No artificial entities such as corporations, PAC's, etc. All ads need to name the real person who paid for it. People have a right to associate with others, but that doesn't mean they can make political contributions. The current Supreme Court justices seem favorable to reversing precedents, so maybe they'll rule that corporations aren't people and that spending money isn't speech. Never mind, I'm just fantasizing.
like your ideas....do all three...prohibit....restrict...and expose! Take all MONEY out of politics. Run for an election by having enough supporters register you and then have the citizens pay for campaigns and limit the expense of campaigns! Have debates and rallies at the expense of the citizens and have no corporate support!
"Wasting $1.6 billion per year on public schools that fail to educate our kids." That sounds like students can't read or fo basic math, that nobody graduates from South Dakota high schools, that none who graduate qualify to be admitted to college. I could go on and on to illustrate the falsely of that quoted statement. Teacher pay is low compared to national averages. I can't say where per pupil spending compares to national averages, but I suspect it ranks close to teacher pay. Substandard investment in public education can be expected to give substandard results. I'm adamantly opposed to using taxpayers dollars to pay parents to keep their kids at home or in private schools. Public schools need to be a top priority. Businesses, professional athletic teams, and informed taxpayers know that you usually get what you pay for. Diverting funds away from public schools will definitely make public schools worse.
I agree. Having formerly worked in the SF school district I know how hard teachers work. Parents have changed and don’t teach their kids to respect teachers which results in way too much of teachers time being spent on discipline issues. Parents are responsible for kids results too. Do they get their kids to school?, do they feed their kids?, do they make sure they do their homework?, do they come to parent teacher conferences? I’d like more money for public schools to make class sizes smaller.
I haven't heard anyone is saying it is all the teachers' fault. I think people are just saying $1.6 billion is a lot of money and we aren't getting results. I think the other concern is the per student cost has continued to increase. People are maxed out and can't afford more taxes.
I have 2 children and 2 grandchildren who teach. Two in Catholic schools and 2 in public schools. I am willing to bet all four cares more about the student education more than 60% of the parents that send their kids to school.
This year in Pierre I do not believe there is a single teacher in the chambers. Why? Oh that right, because they are at school doing their jobs, educating your kids. They are teaching and counseling the children of those in Pierre who are daily telling them they do not do their jobs. This session has been disgusting.
I think I counted the other day that there are 14 farmer/ranchers in Pierre this year. I am not seeing much legislation about what is supposed to be the biggest business in SD, Ag. Why?
The other legislators in the room are not telling the farmers what to plant, where to buy their fuel, and where sell their milk. No one says their production should be higher and the prices lower.
Check out New York for education? Really, then check out the Red River Valley for Ag production. They probably produce twice the amount of the farms in the Crocker hills. Do you think they should pass legislation that those farmers are not good enough to get farm payments? No, we understand that the land is not even close as Red River soil. So we include them with all South Dakota producers we praise for their work they do for feeding America.
Teachers do not get to choose the students that they serve; they get the kids that were given to them for eight hours a day. Most teachers do not see color, ethnic background, and religious background. They suspect there are broken homes, spouse abuse, drug abuse and alcoholic parents,. They know there are kids in their class who miss meals often. Parents who are working 2 jobs to try and make ends meet, maybe because of medical cost or poor decisions earlier in life..
What teachers see are kids that need to be educated and be included. Kids that are looking for discipline and someone that cares. Teachers take the poor, the rich, the handicapped, the under privileged, the privileged, and work to make all better for all, to fit in, inclusion as well as educate.
Quit beating up the educators before we don't have any. Some teachers have up to 120 kids a day. They make $50,00 a year. That is $417 per child before taxes and social security. There are parents that are paying that for a baby sitter a month. Are you asking your employer to pick up that tab?
You want to help then go to the school board and support educators by insisting they have the right to discipline students. Quit complaining about teachers and schools at the supper table. It leads to disrespect at school. Volunteer without meddling, if that is possible, to help class room teachers correct and grade. Volunteer for lunch room duty and recess. That will show what kids, probably yours included are like at school, "my kid would not do that." I also had a friend who was a juvenile officer, parent favorite line.
Remember when looking at test scores, not everyone can be the quarterback just like not every kid is going to be a scholar. Quit making laws that make kids stay in school until they are 18. If they do not want to be there, do not force them to be there. If is my child drops out at 17, I am not asking anyone for my $7,000 back.
Can’t afford your taxes? Then ask the politicans this question. Why does SD still have 66 counties in South Dakota in the age of technology? 66 auditors, 66 treasurers, 66 everything. Minnehaha, Pennington, and Lincoln serve over 400,000 people. Jones county has 850 and Hyde has 1,200. ??
My guess there are a lot of things that you do and buy that you do not really need, but not making sure every kid in South Dakota has the opportunity for an education should not be one of them.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Many people agree it makes sense to allow kids to leave school after grade 8. About the rest of the kids --- most of the money in the state budget goes to education and health and social services. Then most of the property tax money (county budgets) goes to education. We are burning so much money in K-12 education, we have no choice but to get it under control. A few years ago it was $1.6 billion per year. That's a huge amount of money, especially when the bulk of the kids are performing below grade level.
This used to be the law...and it would make a lot of sense for kids who learn better by doing rather than reading/listening.
Also, I've heard that in some other countries there are different tracks for the high school ages: tech vs college basically. We do it here after high school - but why wait? That might be one way to customize and create a better "fit" for learning if kids have to stay in a public school that long...(makes more sense to just reduce the compulsory attendance age though - maybe to 16 instead of 8th grade?).
Are you suggesting schools should be a babysitting services? Many taxpayers don't want to pay for this service. If the wages are so low a family cannot afford to have a parent at home or pay for a babysitter, the companies that are depressing their wages (foreign workers) might need to be forced to pay the cost of education and childcare. Economics suggests the problem would get corrected rapidly.
Many of the Hutterite colonies already have this model. I don't think the point is there is a one size fits all. Rather we need some flexibility, because what we are doing is not working.
But the work/profession they chose takes more than that 9 months. It’s a lifetime commitment for many. I think none of them chose that route relative to “summertime” off. All I’ve know in my life have consistently pursued further education in the profession in “idle” time for requisite or typically self driven professional development. The disproportionate pay between top and bottom is atrocious…and has significantly widened in my 65 years.
Thank you for sharing your experience. I worked in education. My experience was not the same as yours. Teachers worked many fewer hours and had lots of vacations (Christmas vacation, spring break, summer vacation, etc.). Most did not work during the vacation periods. I think many people agree most of the money needs to go directly to the classroom, but I also think we need to be honest about the current compensation as well.
I just listened to the House Bill 1185 discussion, and this should be listened to by all, because some of the opponents to this even KNOW it's wrong but similar to SB 201 last year they just go along with the status quo, ultimately, until, in exasperation, it gets referred by the people and put in front of Everyone at the ballot box to have their voices heard. Rep. Scott Odenbach had excellent comments as well as Rep May and others. Rep Morton tried to say it was muzzling and silencing free speech - not even close! As Rep. May repeatedly said "the issue is not going away". Please listen, 30 minutes.
I think that is why so many people are upset with Mr. Monson lobbying. A teacher works about 9 months. What is the annual salary if he/she worked 12 months? What should it be?
Class sizes would be smaller if more people moved their kids to other forms of education...so, why do people get all bent out of shape by the idea of letting the parents direct some (not all) of the tax money collected for education in the state?
So, if a parent recognizes that their child is not learning in the public school system, you want the both the parent (who is now paying for a different education elsewhere) & the other taxpayers to instead keep funding the system that isn't working well? And giving that system even more money - even though the results are substandard? What kind of business model are you using?!?
It is EDUCATION that is a priority - NOT 'the public school system'. The reason public schools are having a hard time is not the amount of money - it is the overbearing rules & restrictions & overconcern with testing. Teachers hands are tied by stupid gov't rules and uninvolved parents and bored/frustrated kids.
You may be right that if all the involved parents take their kids elsewhere then the public schools will be worse off - but that has little to do with the actual funding of the schools. It has to do with the people involved...no one wants to say that out loud though, because it sounds mean. Truth can be hard to hear...but without it, no real change can happen.
The comment “if a parent believed their kid is not learning in public school”……. somehow they are unfairly forced to pay double if they send the kid to private school, no. You don’t pay for public education to just educate YOUR kid. People with zero children or a dozen children all pay for public education the same way. We are paying to have an educated PUBLIC not for your kids or my kid to be educated. Unfortunately it seems people pay more attention to education when they have kids in school, you should not. We all benefit from an educated society or will suffer as it gets dimmer.
I haven't heard anyone say get rid of education. I think the issue is somewhere between 60% and 80% of the kids are below grade level and it is costing $1.6 billion per year (a huge amount of money). People want to control costs and improve performance.
I continue to hear $1.6 billion is too much to spend on K-12 public education. It is a lot of money but there are a lot of kids and you keep saying we are not doing well. How much do you consider a reasonable amount. I don’t even know what the $1.6 billion includes.
I don't accept that public education is a failure. Some places do better than others. Part of current lower performance is a consequence of how the pandemic was handled, just as inflation was a consequence. Defunding public schools will not improve education outcomes any more than defunding police will reduce crime.
I often worry that the kids are just pawns in some crazy, broken money making game. Several options were presented in https://southdakotavoices.substack.com/p/as-taxpayers-struggle-legislators. Which one appeals to you? Is there something else that might be better at controlling costs and improving performance?
As long as private entities are allowed to lobby, they will always be against the public. It is too easy to hide lobbying behind emotional curtains. The only legal lobbying is for the individual to contact their representative directly.
We the People have been hoodwinked like no other group of people in the history of the world. Every state is a sub corporation of the Federal government registered with Dunn and Bradstreet. What South Dakota and every other state needs is. It's own DOGE. The reason is the unconstitutional American BAR was allowed to set up the legal system following the federal courts lead. The robber barons have been calling the shots using a very unfair legal system. As the federal corruption is being exposed day after day, think about this. If it is this bad at the federal level what makes anyone think it hasn't happened on the state level. It is time for a movement to take our states back. It is time for every person to be treated better through transparency.
There's nothing wrong with professional groups like the SDEA or School Administrators or various school boards having a lobbyist. Lobbying has always been a part of American democracy, protected by the First Amendment. Generally lobbying is a small part of what most groups do. Mostly, its providing information to their members on what's new in the field of education. They do let their members know about what bills are introduced, who to talk to about the bills, etc. It's basic American democracy at work. As far as Administrators, it is usually part of their contract that they should keep up with their profession, and often it comes with money for a membership in their employment contract, 95 percent of that money goes to things other than lobbying.
South Dakota's lobbying regulations are pretty weak, and could be made much tighter. The disclosure requirements are minimal. Those could be considerably strengthened. But, really, it should be up to individual legislators to disclose who they are talking to regarding legislation.
The groups you are talking about do not spend much on freebies for the legislators. They are there to provide information on bills of interest to their members.
My lobbying was for citizens groups, so I know that some lobbyists have much more sway because of money or connections. Many grassroots people see lobbying as a hopeless. Going up against the elite lobbyists and money interest who generally are closely affiliated with the Republican Party. power structure is not easy.
One of the problems I've seen is that citizens tend to be too emotional, and not fact based. South Dakota has a Constitution that prevents certain things in public schools. For one, the system is supposed to be unified and without tuition. Trying to make an end run around that is a fools errand.
There's nothing wrong with private or parochial education or homeschooling, but if you don't want state mandates similar to public schools,
The concern is this is money collected from the taxpayers and they may not want their money going to a lobbyist that is working against them. People are very upset about taxes and one of the major drains in public education. They are even more upset, because the performance for $1.6 billion/year is so low (about 60% - 80% of the kids are not at grade level, links to the data here -- https://southdakotavoices.substack.com/p/education-savings-accounts-a-way)
Did you not know that the school funding formula is actually a property tax limiting measure? The changes made in the education funding in the mid-1990s turned the education funding formula into a means to limit property taxes. It works if the state actually provides adequate funding through the formula. When the state shorts the formula it tends to push property taxes higher. Efforts to divert money into a separate system (vouchers, etc.) actually increases property taxes.
People don't lose their constitutional rights to interact with their legislator just because of who they work for. Religious schools get property tax breaks. Other tax payers have to pay more because that property is not taxed. Should public school administrators whine because these schools have lobbyists?
Right now we are seeing 56% of our property taxes and about 29% of the state revenue (I contribute to both) go to fund public schools that are failing to get somewhere between about 60% and 80% of the students to grade level. If you suggesting people should have the option to opt out, I am guessing a lot of people would be 100% with you. It appears that most would gladly move their money someplace else where the performance was higher.
No. It doesn't "reduce" property taxes. As I said, it "limits" the increase of property taxes. Of course, it is complex, and depends a lot on how consistently the Legislature meets its end of the bargain on school funding. Equalization of taxes across various jurisdictions can mask the tax limitation in certain jurisdictions in certain years. Overall, the system was designed to provide a cap on property taxes, not to provide adequate funding to education.
Several states developed the same sort of education funding system in the 1990s. Before then states failed to provide adequate amounts of funding to schools, so districts used their taxing authority to make up for the state shortfall by funding education through the property tax. Also, it was a time in education when districts were met with added costs for special ed and the switch to computers. The state limit on property taxes depends on adequate state funding, and districts can tax more if they "opt out."
I'm not sure about the current Custer situation. I know my daughter was at Hermosa for a few years, and they had four-day school as a cost-saving measure. There has been a lot of growth in some parts of the county, and, of course. there is a lot of federal land. I'm not sure if increased valuations are causing the property taxes to go up, or if the feds haven't been kicking in as much money. Or if the state has been shorting things.
South Dakota Voices Response: Bryan, thank you for joining the discussion and sharing your concerns.
Email comment from BK: "Yes...millionaire MAGA loyalist Toby Doeden has a war chest of throw away candidates who he bought and paid them the bring extreme legislation like HB 1201 too the table and to try to do away with a functioning medical cannabis program that works for South Dakota. He makes these young politicians look like fools at his own expense...all in the interest of hoping that they will accept his $$ for the next election. I've been saying it for many years. We need $$ out of politics completely."
Money in politics is a huge problem. When incumbents have millions of dollars it is very hard to defeat them. The worst thing that ever happened was the Supreme Court decision on citizens united. It allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in races which gives an advantage to corporations over the regular citizen. When billionaires like Elon Musk can set up their own pack with millions of their own money and steer that pac money to one candidate it buys them a lot of influence. There should be a limit on what candidates can spend. Give each candidate the same budget and see who can run the better campaign- it will give you an idea how they can manage a budget
First step is limit political contributions to people who are US citizens. No artificial entities such as corporations, PAC's, etc. All ads need to name the real person who paid for it. People have a right to associate with others, but that doesn't mean they can make political contributions. The current Supreme Court justices seem favorable to reversing precedents, so maybe they'll rule that corporations aren't people and that spending money isn't speech. Never mind, I'm just fantasizing.
like your ideas....do all three...prohibit....restrict...and expose! Take all MONEY out of politics. Run for an election by having enough supporters register you and then have the citizens pay for campaigns and limit the expense of campaigns! Have debates and rallies at the expense of the citizens and have no corporate support!
All three of above solutions are great ‼️
Yes I also like your three ideas or solutions
South Dakota Voices Response: PW, thank you for joining the conversation.
Email comment from PW: "Time to expose the crookedness is NOW!"
South Dakota Voices Response: Art, thank you for joining the conversation. Part of the subtle visual communication. Glad you noticed.
Email comment from AJ: "Why are they shaking hands with the left hands?"
"Wasting $1.6 billion per year on public schools that fail to educate our kids." That sounds like students can't read or fo basic math, that nobody graduates from South Dakota high schools, that none who graduate qualify to be admitted to college. I could go on and on to illustrate the falsely of that quoted statement. Teacher pay is low compared to national averages. I can't say where per pupil spending compares to national averages, but I suspect it ranks close to teacher pay. Substandard investment in public education can be expected to give substandard results. I'm adamantly opposed to using taxpayers dollars to pay parents to keep their kids at home or in private schools. Public schools need to be a top priority. Businesses, professional athletic teams, and informed taxpayers know that you usually get what you pay for. Diverting funds away from public schools will definitely make public schools worse.
Sadly the entire US public education system is underperforming (check out the PISA data). Pouring money in doesn't seem to work - check out New York.
I agree. Having formerly worked in the SF school district I know how hard teachers work. Parents have changed and don’t teach their kids to respect teachers which results in way too much of teachers time being spent on discipline issues. Parents are responsible for kids results too. Do they get their kids to school?, do they feed their kids?, do they make sure they do their homework?, do they come to parent teacher conferences? I’d like more money for public schools to make class sizes smaller.
I haven't heard anyone is saying it is all the teachers' fault. I think people are just saying $1.6 billion is a lot of money and we aren't getting results. I think the other concern is the per student cost has continued to increase. People are maxed out and can't afford more taxes.
You just did and have before.
I have 2 children and 2 grandchildren who teach. Two in Catholic schools and 2 in public schools. I am willing to bet all four cares more about the student education more than 60% of the parents that send their kids to school.
This year in Pierre I do not believe there is a single teacher in the chambers. Why? Oh that right, because they are at school doing their jobs, educating your kids. They are teaching and counseling the children of those in Pierre who are daily telling them they do not do their jobs. This session has been disgusting.
I think I counted the other day that there are 14 farmer/ranchers in Pierre this year. I am not seeing much legislation about what is supposed to be the biggest business in SD, Ag. Why?
The other legislators in the room are not telling the farmers what to plant, where to buy their fuel, and where sell their milk. No one says their production should be higher and the prices lower.
Check out New York for education? Really, then check out the Red River Valley for Ag production. They probably produce twice the amount of the farms in the Crocker hills. Do you think they should pass legislation that those farmers are not good enough to get farm payments? No, we understand that the land is not even close as Red River soil. So we include them with all South Dakota producers we praise for their work they do for feeding America.
Teachers do not get to choose the students that they serve; they get the kids that were given to them for eight hours a day. Most teachers do not see color, ethnic background, and religious background. They suspect there are broken homes, spouse abuse, drug abuse and alcoholic parents,. They know there are kids in their class who miss meals often. Parents who are working 2 jobs to try and make ends meet, maybe because of medical cost or poor decisions earlier in life..
What teachers see are kids that need to be educated and be included. Kids that are looking for discipline and someone that cares. Teachers take the poor, the rich, the handicapped, the under privileged, the privileged, and work to make all better for all, to fit in, inclusion as well as educate.
Quit beating up the educators before we don't have any. Some teachers have up to 120 kids a day. They make $50,00 a year. That is $417 per child before taxes and social security. There are parents that are paying that for a baby sitter a month. Are you asking your employer to pick up that tab?
You want to help then go to the school board and support educators by insisting they have the right to discipline students. Quit complaining about teachers and schools at the supper table. It leads to disrespect at school. Volunteer without meddling, if that is possible, to help class room teachers correct and grade. Volunteer for lunch room duty and recess. That will show what kids, probably yours included are like at school, "my kid would not do that." I also had a friend who was a juvenile officer, parent favorite line.
Remember when looking at test scores, not everyone can be the quarterback just like not every kid is going to be a scholar. Quit making laws that make kids stay in school until they are 18. If they do not want to be there, do not force them to be there. If is my child drops out at 17, I am not asking anyone for my $7,000 back.
Can’t afford your taxes? Then ask the politicans this question. Why does SD still have 66 counties in South Dakota in the age of technology? 66 auditors, 66 treasurers, 66 everything. Minnehaha, Pennington, and Lincoln serve over 400,000 people. Jones county has 850 and Hyde has 1,200. ??
My guess there are a lot of things that you do and buy that you do not really need, but not making sure every kid in South Dakota has the opportunity for an education should not be one of them.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Many people agree it makes sense to allow kids to leave school after grade 8. About the rest of the kids --- most of the money in the state budget goes to education and health and social services. Then most of the property tax money (county budgets) goes to education. We are burning so much money in K-12 education, we have no choice but to get it under control. A few years ago it was $1.6 billion per year. That's a huge amount of money, especially when the bulk of the kids are performing below grade level.
This used to be the law...and it would make a lot of sense for kids who learn better by doing rather than reading/listening.
Also, I've heard that in some other countries there are different tracks for the high school ages: tech vs college basically. We do it here after high school - but why wait? That might be one way to customize and create a better "fit" for learning if kids have to stay in a public school that long...(makes more sense to just reduce the compulsory attendance age though - maybe to 16 instead of 8th grade?).
How do we provide this option. People in the trades make a lot of money. Why are we discouraging it?
If kids leave school after 8th grade, (age 13 or 14) what will they do with their time?
Are you suggesting schools should be a babysitting services? Many taxpayers don't want to pay for this service. If the wages are so low a family cannot afford to have a parent at home or pay for a babysitter, the companies that are depressing their wages (foreign workers) might need to be forced to pay the cost of education and childcare. Economics suggests the problem would get corrected rapidly.
Many of the Hutterite colonies already have this model. I don't think the point is there is a one size fits all. Rather we need some flexibility, because what we are doing is not working.
That's very insightful.
But the work/profession they chose takes more than that 9 months. It’s a lifetime commitment for many. I think none of them chose that route relative to “summertime” off. All I’ve know in my life have consistently pursued further education in the profession in “idle” time for requisite or typically self driven professional development. The disproportionate pay between top and bottom is atrocious…and has significantly widened in my 65 years.
Everywhere.
Thank you for sharing your experience. I worked in education. My experience was not the same as yours. Teachers worked many fewer hours and had lots of vacations (Christmas vacation, spring break, summer vacation, etc.). Most did not work during the vacation periods. I think many people agree most of the money needs to go directly to the classroom, but I also think we need to be honest about the current compensation as well.
I just listened to the House Bill 1185 discussion, and this should be listened to by all, because some of the opponents to this even KNOW it's wrong but similar to SB 201 last year they just go along with the status quo, ultimately, until, in exasperation, it gets referred by the people and put in front of Everyone at the ballot box to have their voices heard. Rep. Scott Odenbach had excellent comments as well as Rep May and others. Rep Morton tried to say it was muzzling and silencing free speech - not even close! As Rep. May repeatedly said "the issue is not going away". Please listen, 30 minutes.
https://sdpb.sd.gov/sdpbpodcast/2025/hou21.mp3#t=12403
…but it’s okay. School CEO/administrator pay will keep rising. Teachers be damned…
I think that is why so many people are upset with Mr. Monson lobbying. A teacher works about 9 months. What is the annual salary if he/she worked 12 months? What should it be?
Class sizes would be smaller if more people moved their kids to other forms of education...so, why do people get all bent out of shape by the idea of letting the parents direct some (not all) of the tax money collected for education in the state?
So, if a parent recognizes that their child is not learning in the public school system, you want the both the parent (who is now paying for a different education elsewhere) & the other taxpayers to instead keep funding the system that isn't working well? And giving that system even more money - even though the results are substandard? What kind of business model are you using?!?
It is EDUCATION that is a priority - NOT 'the public school system'. The reason public schools are having a hard time is not the amount of money - it is the overbearing rules & restrictions & overconcern with testing. Teachers hands are tied by stupid gov't rules and uninvolved parents and bored/frustrated kids.
You may be right that if all the involved parents take their kids elsewhere then the public schools will be worse off - but that has little to do with the actual funding of the schools. It has to do with the people involved...no one wants to say that out loud though, because it sounds mean. Truth can be hard to hear...but without it, no real change can happen.
Good points. How do we fix the problem without just throwing more money at it.
The comment “if a parent believed their kid is not learning in public school”……. somehow they are unfairly forced to pay double if they send the kid to private school, no. You don’t pay for public education to just educate YOUR kid. People with zero children or a dozen children all pay for public education the same way. We are paying to have an educated PUBLIC not for your kids or my kid to be educated. Unfortunately it seems people pay more attention to education when they have kids in school, you should not. We all benefit from an educated society or will suffer as it gets dimmer.
I haven't heard anyone say get rid of education. I think the issue is somewhere between 60% and 80% of the kids are below grade level and it is costing $1.6 billion per year (a huge amount of money). People want to control costs and improve performance.
I continue to hear $1.6 billion is too much to spend on K-12 public education. It is a lot of money but there are a lot of kids and you keep saying we are not doing well. How much do you consider a reasonable amount. I don’t even know what the $1.6 billion includes.
I don't accept that public education is a failure. Some places do better than others. Part of current lower performance is a consequence of how the pandemic was handled, just as inflation was a consequence. Defunding public schools will not improve education outcomes any more than defunding police will reduce crime.
Perhaps I am missing something. How is having 60% and 80% of the students below grade level a success?
Diverting funds won't fix anything.
I often worry that the kids are just pawns in some crazy, broken money making game. Several options were presented in https://southdakotavoices.substack.com/p/as-taxpayers-struggle-legislators. Which one appeals to you? Is there something else that might be better at controlling costs and improving performance?
As long as private entities are allowed to lobby, they will always be against the public. It is too easy to hide lobbying behind emotional curtains. The only legal lobbying is for the individual to contact their representative directly.
We the People have been hoodwinked like no other group of people in the history of the world. Every state is a sub corporation of the Federal government registered with Dunn and Bradstreet. What South Dakota and every other state needs is. It's own DOGE. The reason is the unconstitutional American BAR was allowed to set up the legal system following the federal courts lead. The robber barons have been calling the shots using a very unfair legal system. As the federal corruption is being exposed day after day, think about this. If it is this bad at the federal level what makes anyone think it hasn't happened on the state level. It is time for a movement to take our states back. It is time for every person to be treated better through transparency.
Robber Barons are in charge now. I can't see how that turns out good.
There's nothing wrong with professional groups like the SDEA or School Administrators or various school boards having a lobbyist. Lobbying has always been a part of American democracy, protected by the First Amendment. Generally lobbying is a small part of what most groups do. Mostly, its providing information to their members on what's new in the field of education. They do let their members know about what bills are introduced, who to talk to about the bills, etc. It's basic American democracy at work. As far as Administrators, it is usually part of their contract that they should keep up with their profession, and often it comes with money for a membership in their employment contract, 95 percent of that money goes to things other than lobbying.
South Dakota's lobbying regulations are pretty weak, and could be made much tighter. The disclosure requirements are minimal. Those could be considerably strengthened. But, really, it should be up to individual legislators to disclose who they are talking to regarding legislation.
The groups you are talking about do not spend much on freebies for the legislators. They are there to provide information on bills of interest to their members.
My lobbying was for citizens groups, so I know that some lobbyists have much more sway because of money or connections. Many grassroots people see lobbying as a hopeless. Going up against the elite lobbyists and money interest who generally are closely affiliated with the Republican Party. power structure is not easy.
One of the problems I've seen is that citizens tend to be too emotional, and not fact based. South Dakota has a Constitution that prevents certain things in public schools. For one, the system is supposed to be unified and without tuition. Trying to make an end run around that is a fools errand.
There's nothing wrong with private or parochial education or homeschooling, but if you don't want state mandates similar to public schools,
The concern is this is money collected from the taxpayers and they may not want their money going to a lobbyist that is working against them. People are very upset about taxes and one of the major drains in public education. They are even more upset, because the performance for $1.6 billion/year is so low (about 60% - 80% of the kids are not at grade level, links to the data here -- https://southdakotavoices.substack.com/p/education-savings-accounts-a-way)
Did you not know that the school funding formula is actually a property tax limiting measure? The changes made in the education funding in the mid-1990s turned the education funding formula into a means to limit property taxes. It works if the state actually provides adequate funding through the formula. When the state shorts the formula it tends to push property taxes higher. Efforts to divert money into a separate system (vouchers, etc.) actually increases property taxes.
People don't lose their constitutional rights to interact with their legislator just because of who they work for. Religious schools get property tax breaks. Other tax payers have to pay more because that property is not taxed. Should public school administrators whine because these schools have lobbyists?
Right now we are seeing 56% of our property taxes and about 29% of the state revenue (I contribute to both) go to fund public schools that are failing to get somewhere between about 60% and 80% of the students to grade level. If you suggesting people should have the option to opt out, I am guessing a lot of people would be 100% with you. It appears that most would gladly move their money someplace else where the performance was higher.
The school funding formula doesn't reduce property taxes everywhere. Ask Custer.
No. It doesn't "reduce" property taxes. As I said, it "limits" the increase of property taxes. Of course, it is complex, and depends a lot on how consistently the Legislature meets its end of the bargain on school funding. Equalization of taxes across various jurisdictions can mask the tax limitation in certain jurisdictions in certain years. Overall, the system was designed to provide a cap on property taxes, not to provide adequate funding to education.
Several states developed the same sort of education funding system in the 1990s. Before then states failed to provide adequate amounts of funding to schools, so districts used their taxing authority to make up for the state shortfall by funding education through the property tax. Also, it was a time in education when districts were met with added costs for special ed and the switch to computers. The state limit on property taxes depends on adequate state funding, and districts can tax more if they "opt out."
I'm not sure about the current Custer situation. I know my daughter was at Hermosa for a few years, and they had four-day school as a cost-saving measure. There has been a lot of growth in some parts of the county, and, of course. there is a lot of federal land. I'm not sure if increased valuations are causing the property taxes to go up, or if the feds haven't been kicking in as much money. Or if the state has been shorting things.