What is it with ladies named Kristi making such easy blog fodder?
Kristi Golden crawled out of her bunker, squinting into the harsh light of blogospheric day, and added a few posts to Dakota War College this week. Alas, with her latest post, Golden maintains the DWC (and GOP) tradition of being all war and no college.
Golden skims this KELO article on education funding, which opens with this line:
A new report shows South Dakota schools are falling further behind in funding and more districts are relying on taxpayers to pay for education [Katie Janssen, "Report: SD Schools Falling Further Behind," KELOLand.com, 2011.05.27].
Golden offers this flaccid front-porch flippancy:
Gee, here I am thinking funding from the state of South Dakota also came from taxpayers — oh wait, SD gets money from the Federal Gov't that must be it.....so where do the Feds get their money from....oh that's right — the taxpayers [Kristi Golden, "Where Do They Think the State Money Comes From?" Dakota War College, 2011.05.27].
Now I'll grant that Janssen should have written a clearer first sentence and headline. But Golden apparently reads neither the full KELO article nor the Census Bureau report it cites (with a hyperlink! Nice work, KELO!). The major South Dakota point coming from the report is the same one I've made on various occasions: our State Legislature shows a woeful lack of fiscal commitment to K-12 education compared to other states, the federal government, and local school districts.
| Federal | State | Local | |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 9.5 | 46.7 | 43.8 |
| Iowa | 7.8 | 46.1 | 46.1 |
| Minnesota | 5.7 | 64.8 | 29.5 |
| Montana | 12.3 | 48.0 | 39.7 |
| Nebraska | 8.6 | 34.3 | 57.1 |
| North Dakota | 14.5 | 36.9 | 48.6 |
| South Dakota | 16.1 | 32.9 | 51.0 |
| Wyoming | 6.5 | 56.5 | 37.0 |
| Table: Percentage of K-12 Education Funding from Federal, State, and Local Sources, 2008&ndash2009 School Year Source: U.S. Census Bureau | |||
South Dakota's state government takes less responsibility for educating children than any neighboring state government. In 2008-2009, Pierre spent $3260 per K-12 student, just 57% of the national per-student state-funding average. Our local districts strove to fill the gap, mustering another $5059 per student, 94% of the national per-student local-funding average.
And while Pierre preaches self-reliance, South Dakota has the highest reliance on federal dollars for K-12 education.
Sure, federal, state, and local funding for schools all comes from taxpayers. But as we discussed here back in March (pay attention, Kristi!), strong state funding is vital to providing equal educational opportunities to all students. Shifting the funding burden to local government means richer districts will be able to pour more resources into educating their kids than poorer districts. The more we rely on local funding (exactly the direction Governor Daugaard, Senator Russell Olson, and the GOP took us this winter), the more we entrench economic inequality. That's a problem for the economy and for democracy.
Not to mention, when arguing that even federal tax dollars come from taxpayers (as though that proves... what exactly?), my beloved South Dakota is one of the biggest Welfare Queen states, taking in far more federal tax dollars than it contributes. Minnesota is one of the biggest donor states, receiving less than it pays out.
Not that that proves anything either, by itself. In many cases, rural states with low populations might receive more tax dollars to maintain roads or other infrastructure that our nation needs as a whole. However, if people are going to argue about the state being gloriously self-reliant, that dog won't hunt.
This post proves why you're a better blogger than I am. I just skimmed the post and shrugged it off as more of the same.
Maybe that's why DWC won't put me on their blog feed.
More money does not equal a better education.
No, Jenna, at some level, more money does mean a better school system. If one district offers salaries of $50K and a neighboring district offers salaries of $25K, the first district will attract more talent. If that's not true, then the whole free market system is based on a lie.
But the broader point is that the state has an obligation to reduce inequalities between school systems. Some towns are poorer than others. Some towns can't afford good salaries or building renovations to provide safer, healthier classrooms. Shifting the funding burden to local districts increases those inequalities and makes it harder for kids in poor communities to get as many opportunities as kids in rich communities. That decreases the opportunities poor kids have to rise above their conditions, get good jobs, and raise the wealth of their communities. Vicious cycle.
I saw a tagline for a forum poster that seemed to sum up the GOP austerity attacks on beneficial education and social programs.
"Of course it hurts, you are being screwed by the elephant."
Douglas, I'm going to quote that on Facebook. Amen.
Amen to your comment, too, Chris. GOP logic is all heads I win, tails you lose: More money doesn't solve the problem; but free market economics will always make sure the winners make the most money.
More money doesn't make a difference; that's why corporations spend billions on advertising every year. More money doesn't make a difference; unless I'm the one who's getting it (Kristi Noem and farm subsidies, taxpayer paid insurance, etc.).
Oh, and I forgot my GOP favorite: Employees don't need higher wages, but CEOs need to make millions.
Yup Eve, they say that increasing the minimum wage will destroy people's initiative and they won't seek better jobs, but not raising executive salaries or taxing them fairly will destroy their initiative. What passes as conservatism now is more like a political funhouse mirror of the world.