The Associated School Boards of South Dakota unload on the State Legislature with a new report on the sorry state of school funding in our fair state. Among the important points: Senate Majority Leader Russell Olson passed and celebrated a budget that essentially embraces increasing unfunded mandates on our public schools:
Even during years in which K-12 education funding inched higher, expectations placed on our public school students continued to rise. Graduation requirements have been increased and become more rigorous. The implementation of assessment and accountability systems now requires schools to perpetually drive achievement levels higher, or face government intervention and financial penalty ["Where We Stand: The Past, Present, and Future of Per-Student Funding," ASBSD, April 2011].
Senator Olson's "Issues" page suggests he should recoil at such unfunded mandates:
I support states' rights and oppose government mandates, especially those which do not provide the funding, or the means of funding, necessary to carry out such mandates.
The K-12 cuts forced by Senator Olson were not accompanied by any major reduction in mandates on schools, like eliminating the time-wasting standardized tests that have taken up so much class time this month. The Legislature passed the buck, telling school districts that if they need more money to meet the state's requirements, they have to raise that money locally. Senator Olson and the GOP holler about Washington pulling that trick, but they embrace it in their own policymaking.
There is no doubt that this year has been the blackest eye on Education Funding in recent history. Most schools recently went through several years of declining enrollment and declining State funding support, which caused major budget reductions prior to the last two years of funding cuts. While the Governor owns the disruptive results of balancing the budget on the backs of our children in one year rather than doing it over two or three years, Russell did stand hip to hip with Governor Daugaard and therefore reaps the political honors or fallout as education evolves. There were no budget cuts. There was simply a transfer of responsibility from the state to local taxpayers where education funding is concerned.
Rod, you're right, and you make a useful distinction. In some districts, there are real budget cuts, as the locals wither don't have the money or don't have the political will to approve it (we'll see what happens in Yankton). But some districts will raise their taxes and assume the responsibility the Legislature and Governor have shirked. Cutting education, transferring responsibility—neither sound like a great campaign slogan.