Press "Enter" to skip to content

Are South Dakota Schools Teaching State Constitution?

Mr. Powers appears to oppose a proposal to require South Dakota students to pass a civics test to graduate high school. He cloaks his blog post on the topic in comment fishing ambivalence (he never closes a rant against Kathy Tyler or a spin-defense of patron Mike Rounds with "But, that’s just my 2 cents worth. What do you think?"), but he is staking out the position that state-mandated tests are bad and that the Legislature ought to defer to the experts on education. Wow—how I wish I cold get Pat and his fellow Republicans to take that position on other issues!

I agree that the last thing I need is the Legislature telling me what to test my students on, but I'll wait to see what if any proposal hits the Legislative hopper this session.

I would like to take a moment to look at the law that Powers says already ensures that South Dakota students get good civics education:

The South Dakota law the article mentions (but fails to cite) is SDCL 13-33-4, which reads:

13-33-4. Instruction on United States and state Constitutions required–Years when given. In all public and nonpublic schools located within the state there shall be given regular courses of instruction in the Constitutions of the United States and the State of South Dakota. Such instruction shall begin not later than the opening of the eighth grade and shall continue in the high school to an extent to be determined by the South Dakota Board of Education.

The law goes back to the state’s codification of laws back in 1939, and may pre-date it even further. So it’s not as if South Dakota ignores a basic need for this type of instruction. I don’t have a problem with this broad kind of guidance [Pat Powers, "What are your thoughts on the proposed citizenship test requirement for high school students? My view? Meh," Dakota War College, 2015.01.19].

It's good to see that Pat can read statute as well as press releases. But can our schools? SDCL 13-33-4 mandates education in both the federal constitution and the state constitution. I do not recall ever discussing the South Dakota constitution in my high school classes. I wonder, social studies teachers, have you been covering...

  1. Article 8 Section 1, which requires the Legislature to "adopt all suitable means" to ensure a free and uniform public school system for its people;
  2. the tension between Article 6 Section 5 guranateeing the freedom of speech and SDCL 22-9-1 outlawing the desecration of the South Dakota flag;
  3. the impact of Article 6 Section 2, the "right-to-work" clause, on undermining the ability labor to organize and fight for its rights;
  4. Article 21 Section 9, the state's ban on gay marriage, and the fact that Judge Schreier's invalidation of that clause may require a revision of Article 21 Section 5, which establishes the property rights of "married women" but makes no provision for property rights of married men and does nothing to protect a married woman from the debts of her lesbian wife?

State law says we have to have those conversations in our schools, public and private. Teachers, fire away! And if you're short on state constitution curriculum, just have the kids tune in the Madville Times. I'm sure we'll be covering more on the South Dakota constitution....

25 Comments

  1. Bobklein 2015.01.19

    The textbook in our hs government class 1968 contained no mention of the SD Constitution, and if it wasn't in the book M. Goldhammer was reading his lectures from, we didn't hear about it.

  2. John 2015.01.19

    Apparently it requires law suits to get school boards and administrators to follow the law. Using that unfortunate prescription soon our judges will find themselves forced to supervise school curriculums. Let the lawsuits begin. No wonder our society rapidly advances toward, "Idiocracy".

  3. grudznick 2015.01.19

    This is just a what iffer, Mr. H. What if there is some teacher out there that forces their students to read your bloggings? Could a parent have a French conniption and demand that teacher's head on a post from their school board or fat-cat administrator? Under the state's constitution, I mean.

  4. larry kurtz 2015.01.19

    Mutual derision societies probing the lowest common denominators: meh.

    When Madville stops sending traffic to the enemy maybe we can begin taking reforms seriously.

  5. grudznick 2015.01.19

    I think Mr. PP enjoys getting people visiting from Mr. H's blog. How do you think our good friend Bill finds those good bloggings over at PP's blogs?

  6. Roger Cornelius 2015.01.19

    Is there a school in South Dakota that actually follows the law and teaches both the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution?

  7. larry kurtz 2015.01.19

    I think PP is a pig of biblical proportions.

  8. grudznick 2015.01.19

    There are no pigs in the Bible, if you read Mr. Sibby's version, Lar. I think you are referring to the Tanakh.

  9. Mick 44 2015.01.19

    For years (I taught for 42 years) I suggested that SD is very lax in not requiring a class in HS on SD History/government/geography. Doing spot fact tests on SD indicated that our kids know about as much about SD as folks from the east coast. To develop pride in our state, we need to know the state.

  10. grudznick 2015.01.19

    Aye, Mr. Mick44. Our children and great grandchildren should be seeped in the wonderful history of South Dakota and pass a test on that before they start quoting James Madison.

  11. larry kurtz 2015.01.19

    Seeped but not steeped is just so deliciously Freudian somehow.

  12. larry kurtz 2015.01.19

    Does anyone know whether Ken Blanchard is still dead?

  13. Donald Pay 2015.01.19

    Here's the operative phrase: "...to an extent to be determined by the South Dakota Board of Education."

    PP should realize that such "weasel words" are quite common throughout the code, and mean that whatever came before can be ignored.

  14. Chris Francis 2015.01.19

    Ah, the wonderful history of our state, which I sure would include a week reviewing the massacre at Wounded Knee, and of course, the war Bill Janklow made for himself in 1973.

  15. Donald Pay 2015.01.19

    Regarding a civics test, how about the test be given to candidates for office with their scores being reported.

  16. caheidelberger Post author | 2015.01.20

    South Dakota history: we got that in sixth grade, which included watching Richard Muller's South Dakota Adventure on South Dakota Public Television (broadcast during the school day, before we had VCRs in the classroom).

  17. Tim 2015.01.20

    Be careful Cory, if republicans find out people are learning something from SDPB they will cut what little funding PB still gets.

  18. JeniW 2015.01.20

    Would requiring candidates to pass a civic test make the individuals better legislators, or would it be just another hoop that potential candidates have to jump through?

    Potential candidates already have requirements and hoops that they have to jump through. Would requiring to pass a test aid help or hinder democracy?

  19. Tim 2015.01.20

    To bad IQ isn't a hoop they have to jump.

  20. bearcreekbat 2015.01.20

    I suspect a requirement that legislators study and pass a test on the US and SD Constitutions would improve lawmaking. Acquiring knowledge about these documents could make it less likely that plainly unconstitutional bills would be introduced, let alone passed. Imagine the savings in both money and honor if our legislators did not try to legislate matters prohibited by our Constitutions!

  21. JeniW 2015.01.20

    Bear, that could be, but the thing that came to mind was how the test scores could be used as weapons, so to speak.

    For example, would a test score of less than 100% mean that the score could be used against the potential candidate by another candidate or political party?

    Candidate A receives a test score of 95%, Candidate B receives a test score of 100%. Could/would other candidates, political parties, or anyone else say "Candidate A only got a score of 95%, therefore s/he is incompetent to hold office." "Because Candidate B received a score of 100%, s/he will be a perfect lawmaker."

  22. bearcreekbat 2015.01.20

    JeniW, it would seem appropriate to use the scores to evaluate candidates if we want those who best understand our Constitutions to be officeholders. Arguing that a candidate with a score of 100% is better than one with 95% is probably a hard sell. But change one of the two scores to 70% or 50% and the contrast in constitutional knowledge and understanding becomes more important and should be a factor for voters to consider.

  23. CK 2015.01.21

    I used to teach, and know that the SD constitution wasn't taught in that school at the time, and since the teacher is still there, i would wager that is still not covered. Now, just for the heck of it, I contacted a couple of 17-18 year Olds that I know, from different schools, and their responses were basically "SD whaaaa?..."

    I did not learn about the SD constitution until I took an elective thru USD. That's right, I chose to learn about the SD constitution.

  24. caheidelberger Post author | 2015.01.21

    Your experience fits with mine, CK. I haven't taken any college classes that dealt with the state constitution, but everything I've learned about that document has come from choices, hearing about issues and going, "What, really?" and then seeking out the language that explains the problem, as in the case of our gay marriage ban and Kathy Tyler's firing last week. Of course, the former seems entirely subject to the federal constitution (hence Judge Schreier's overturning), while the latter seems to be an entirely parochial administrative question about which the U.S. Constitution remains mum...

    ...but wait a minute: is there any chance we could overturn Tyler's firing by pointing to the state constitutions right-to-work clause (cited above) and somehow declaring the Legislature a labor organization? ;-)

Comments are closed.