Last updated on 2013.04.28
Minnehaha County Republican Party bosses picked David Omdahl Monday to fill the ballot slot vacated by District 11 Senator Todd Schlekeway.
How do I know David Omdahl is a clown? Two words: school vouchers. In his pitch to the party Monday night, Omdahl said establishing school vouchers is his priority for education policy.
A candidate for South Dakota Legislature who advocates school vouchers proves that he isn't paying attention to real South Dakota issues. For the vast majority of South Dakotans, school vouchers would open up zero educational options. Only a handful of our 66 counties offer any sort of private K-12 school where families could spend their voucher dollars, even if they have the money to cover the difference between the voucher and full tuition costs. Open enrollment already provides all the practical school choice that most South Dakota families can afford.
Omdahl is clearly spending too much time listening to national right-wing radio and not enough listening to South Dakota parents, teachers, and school administrators. Tom Cool, mop the floor with this guy!
* * *
Speaking of clowns, outgoing District 11 Rep. Lora Hubbel tried to get the nod to fill Schlekeway's ballot slot, but her effort to rent a house within the newly drawn District 11 boundaries "blew up" just hours before the Minnehaha GOP held its powwow. If you really want to serve, you don't leave deals like this to the last minute. And just how does a simple thing like renting an apartment "blow up"?
Related: Down the road in District 6, new Democratic Senate candidate Richard Schriever from Lennox is wasting no time getting some serious views up on his new Facebook campaign page. Two of his fresh quotes suggest he's paying attention to real South Dakota issues and not prefab talking points from the national media:
While my opponent chooses to focus his energies on just two amendments to the US Constitution, I choose to honor every word of that august document. While my opponent chooses to rally for minimal government, I choose to make my political work the assurance that government serves all the people in every way it was intended to. Government is to serve the people, not to avoid engaging them or to set them in competition against one another, or to favor one industry or group over another, nor to be unduly biased or prejudiced in any other way [Schriever, 2012.08.15 00:59].
Policies and decisions of the government should not be based on theoretical ideologies or popular political considerations, but on real information about the real needs of the people we serve [Schriever, 2012.08.15 00:54].
Those are good messages to run against Ernie Otten in District 6, David Omdahl in District 11, and a whole bunch of other Republicans around the state.
Not an issue anyone high on anyone's list, but considering the number of non public schools in Minnehaha county it could get him a few votes from the parents of children attending those schools. Not likely to lose him any Republican votes and maybe might gain him some Democrats.
No, probably a wash at best, Jospeh. Some sioux Falls District 11 voters might like vouchers, but the practical barrier of affordability stands in the city, too. Plus, vouchers mean war on the public school system. If Omdahl wants to run on vouchers, Tom Cool can run on the idea that we all have an obligation to fund a free and universal public education system, whether we send our kids to private school or even if we don't have kids.
--How do I know David Omdahl is a clown? Two words: school vouchers.
Why not just proffer your views on vouchers, using your incredible powers of fact & persuasion to convince your readers of why they do not do what they purport to do ?
Why the name-calling? Come on--it only damages the legitimacy of your blog.
You can do better.
--Plus, vouchers mean war on the public school system.
Mnay folks understandably believe that the public school system is waging war on achievement and progress.
I decline to be lectured by a red-herring specialist like Julie. No one here should be distracted from the main point: David Omdahl represents the misplaced rhetoric of much of the Republican Party, shouting national media talking points instead of looking at real local and state issues. Such rhetoric damages the relevance and legitimacy of Omdahl's message.
Curious of your thoughts on the very interesting story about SF School District paying a private company to take over educating immigrant students at ONLY $4,000.00 per student.
#1 Is it legal?
#2 How does this support their claims they need more to educate students?
--I decline to be lectured by a red-herring specialist like Julie.
And what part of may post was a "red herring"? Did you or did you not call a candidate for the SD house a "clown"? Yes or no?
You will not be allowed to walk away from your name-calling by claiming that the name you used was a "red herring". YOU USED THE NAME. And then you mistakenly and inappropriately used the term "red herring". Double whammy.
--No one here should be distracted from the main point: David Omdahl represents the misplaced rhetoric of much of the Republican Party, shouting national media talking points instead of looking at real local and state issues. Such rhetoric damages the relevance and legitimacy of Omdahl’s message.
If you don't want to detract from your point, maybe you should stop name-calling. ARGUE YOUR POSITION on vouchers.
So you can call him a name because of his position vouchers, and then whine about Rep. using rhetoric "instead of looking at real local and state issues. "
Pick one standard for yourself and for the Rep.; otherwise, I'm gonna call you out on your hypocrisy.
Look ,the tone of any blog is set by its leader. If you want REAL substantive discussions, then model the behavior. If you want an old boys club of like minded folks calling their enemies names, have at it. But then it's no longer a blog--it's a bar.
You cannot have it both ways.
--Curious of your thoughts on the very interesting story about SF School District paying a private company to take over educating immigrant students at ONLY $4,000.00 per student.
Didn't SFPS also pay a private educational group to run the Alternative to the Alternative School?
I'm curious, too, Stace: have we discussed this issue before? Who's the company? What's the motivation: just language/ESL teaching? Does this private company take the kids in separate schools? (O.K., now I'm really headed for another topic!)
Ah yes, here it is:
Virtual Coursework
The Sioux Falls School District has implemented online courses in all three traditional high schools and our alternative high school. Students are able to enroll in online courses through APEX Learning and through the South Dakota Virtual High School supported courses.
This was a $283,800 dollar contract to a private company for 66 students = $4300 per student. Remember, these students dropped out of public school, then dropped out of the public school alternative school, and then wound up in the publicly-funded private alternative to the alternative public school.
Got it?
http://www.ombudsman.com/mediacenter/newstest/11-01-11/Sioux_Falls_to_open_second_alternative_high_school_Sioux_Falls_S_D.aspx
So much for public education. And Cory says that only clowns support vouchers! Who are the real clowns here?
"In July and August of 2011, the Center for Media and Democracy and The Nation exposed efforts by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to privatize education through charters, vouchers, watering down teacher certification, breaking teacher unions, increasing testing, discrediting public schools, and eroding local control." (http://www.parentsunited.org/news-and-events/2012-hot-topic/alec-education-agenda/)
Sounds like Omdahl could be in ALEC's pocket.
And Julie, I know you possess a great need to mark your territory all over Cory's blog, but don't bother with my post please. I long ago began to completely ignore you.
I can answer the question about alternative schools and I'm not even an educator. The reason a cheap alternative exists is because SD passed a law saying you can't drop out of school until you are 18. Since it is also impossible to force any school to take a problem student, many of them have no place to go but are still breaking the law if they aren't in school. So we created this stupid fake school for those kids.
It is in no way an endorsement of voucher systems, it is dealing with the consequences of idiotic legislation passed by our state.
This interested party confesses to allowing trouble-makers to leave districts where those parents would disrupt the work of teachers to attend elsewhere: vouchers for used textbooks from the 19th Century should satisfy the needs of those "instructors."
Larry if you could take the state money for these kids and ship them off to a fake school in your district that only spends $4k per kid, Presto! they are now a profit center.
That is essentially how the SF School Board has turned lemons into lemonade.
For me if somebody wants to send their child to a private school or home school thats fine. But I don't believe they should get vouchers to do it and I don't want to pay for it.
They're making the choice for private schools and they will still have the choice to return to public schools.
I agree, Owen. I wish I didn't have to pay taxes for schools because I don't have children. But I certainly don't want to pay taxes for home schooling or parents that can already afford to send their children to private schools at their own discretion.
That said, I'm skeptical of Sioux Falls' "farming the state" program. However, since my taxes are going up because SD pays the lowest state share in the Union, I'm happy that the Board has found a way to turn a disastrous piece of legislation into a strategy to diminish our local tax burden.
Well put, Justin. Even if a family uses vouchers to got to private school, they still have to pay to keep the public system open as their back-up, not to mention the primary source of education for most kids.
I would like to clear up Julie's point on the APEX issue. The state has encourage schools to look for ways to help students get credit recovery. Many schools, including the one I teach at, off online credit recovery. For most students, this might mean just one or two classes. Students are working on the online material during a study hall time with a supervising teacher. These are typically a cost of school's dollars, but better than having the student fall a year or more behind.
Students in South Dakota are not allowed to drop out of school at 18. SF has several excellent programs to try and help students receive their credits for graduation. One such program is the Joe Foss school. These are just some new methods to help these students, that a voucher program would do nothing to help.
If wondering about the voucher issue, look to SD new friend, Bobby Jindal's program in LA. This has been a huge mess with vouchers and charter school dollars going to some shady groups and institutions.
What I'd like to know is what percentage of these kids actually get their degree by the time they are allowed to drop out of school. It seems like a waste of tax dollars to keep them on the rolls when it's highly unlikely they are going to earn a degree before their peers graduate if they are only required to be schooled until they are 18.
But, hey, we can say we have the lowest dropout rates in the nation! Is that worth what we pay for it?
--These are just some new methods to help these students, that a voucher program would do nothing to help.
In essense, paying a private company, Ombudsman Inc., $283,800 dollars to educate (er, credit recovery) 66 students IS a voucher program.
A voucher program involves a parent making a choice of school for their kids. These are kids that no school district will take that are required by state law to "be in school".
--A voucher program involves a parent making a choice of school for their kids.
Or the kid choosing to attend the Alternative to the Alternative school.
--These are kids that no school district will take that are required by state law to “be in schoolâ€.
And the school that they're in is essentially a private school funded by public money at the rate of $4300 per pupil.
It's a voucher.
No, it isn't a voucher, there is no choice involved.
I realize people like you would like to keep their kids away from a real curriculum so you can home school them about JEE-SUS, but it isn't going to happen, Ellie Mae.
I mean, you can do that if you want, but we aren't going to send you a welfare check for it.
--No, it isn’t a voucher, there is no choice involved
Sure there is.
The student chose to drop of his neighborhood school. Then chose to drop out of Joe Foss.
--I realize people like you would like to keep their kids away from a real curriculum
Wha? Enough with the personal attacks.
--And Julie, I know you possess a great need to mark your territory all over Cory’s blog, but don’t bother with my post please. I long ago began to completely ignore you.
So, you acknowledge my presence so as to warn me that you long ago ignored me?
Wow.
--it is dealing with the consequences of idiotic legislation passed by our state.
That we agree on.
When I was in high school in Minnesota in the early seventies the Democrats passed a law that the state would pay the same percentage of Christian school costs(I think about 30%) as they did for public school costs. Now dems think this is bad. And reps think that what Eisenhower said is bad also. Just a little reminder that each one has to think and not just follow a party. The parties change so you have to watch them to see where they are now. But mainly we each have to think and realize what we believe and why.
Good point, Roger! Those Dems in Minnesota were wrong.
Excellent weblog listed here! Additionally your internet site a great deal upward very quickly! What exactly coordinator are you currently the effective use of? May i was obtaining your affiliate hyperlink on your number? If only my website packed as swiftly because the one you have hehe