The Belle Fourche School District last week approved opting out of the state's property-tax cap. They will make up for the big cuts in state aid by charging local property owners an additional $550,000 a year for three years. This additional revenue comes on top of $275K in cuts this year and expected cuts of another quarter million next year. Superintendent Steve Willard says the district doesn't plan on seeing the Legislature restore the funding it cut this year.
Two of the seven Belle Fourche board members voted against the opt-out. Tim Kudlock, who leaves the board this summer, wasn't trying to short the kids:
Kudlock said he is concerned that if most of the state's school districts approve higher property taxes, the legislature and Gov. Dennis Daugaard could make even greater cuts in state aid [Milo Dailey, "Belle Fourche School Board Votes to Opt out of Property Tax Freeze," Rapid City Journal, 2011.06.27].
Kudlock recognizes a distinct political danger. Many South Dakota school districts are finding the state-prescribed limits on property tax levies insufficient to meet the cost of educating kids. But the more revenue local districts scrape together to keep their schools open, the more our myopic legislators will be able to look at the K-12 landscape during the 2012 session and say, "See? Our budget cuts didn't wreck education! Let's cut some more!"
In a twisted way, by increasing their fiscal commitment to their own children, local districts may be fueling Pierre's continued abdication of its obligation to education.
Local folks could defund their schools and lay off their teachers to make a political point and try provoking Pierre to restore funding and equal opportunity across school districts. But they won't do that. They are directly responsible for their kids and teachers and, in many towns, the cultural glue that holds their communities together. They thus are at a disadvantage in a budget battle with part-time legislators who can distance themselves from their responsibility for education with empty slogans about local control and fiscal discipline.
Corey,
Please, just wait a minute. . .
This might not be such a terrible idea after all. I grew up in rural Montana and our small town and the other towns always seemed to fight and bicker over who got the bigger chunk of education money distributed by the state. Ever since moving here, I've witnessed the same thing said on your blog and other blogs.
Now, more of the responsibility for funding education rests solely on the local districts themselves. If they fail, the local leaders and constituency will take most of blame. In other words, playing the game of directing blame to outside forces for funding shortfalls becomes increasingly difficult when the local district is expected to fund their own schools.
This approach may also show who is really behind education and who really is not at the local level.
If this approach does not work, however, then when it begins to reak real havoc across rural South Dakota. . .
. . .well, then the Super Majority Republicans can answer for that down the road.
Corey,
By the way, that is a beautiful shot of Lake Herman at the top of your blogsite. Do they have bike trails there?
[CAH: Thanks, Guy! There are no dedicated off-road bike trails around Lake Herman (though I have a plan). The road through the state park makes for some great riding. Territorial Road along the northeast shore also provides some great views along two miles of shoreline where we have managed to keep a public road on the lake side of the housing development.]
Guy, there is some sense to what you say. The local-responsibility angle reflects the thinking that I used several years ago to justify being a Republican. People need to understand that government is not something someone else does to them, something out of their control, but something for which they have direct responsibility. Of course, I could turn that the other way and say to people, "Mad about the state's budget cuts? You have only yourselves to blame. You elected the Legislature. If you don't like having to cut your school budget or opt out, then you should hold your legislators accountable... and elect new ones!"
But this report from Paine and Schleicher makes a point that has stuck with me: when we rely more on local resources to fund schools, we open the door for more inequality among school systems. The report finds that one of the factors in other countries' ability to outperform America educationally is their distribution of national resources to level inequalities and raise poor districts up to offer poor families opportunities closer to what the rich families in rich districts get. We can argue about the merits/demerits of more federal funding for our schools, but South Dakota state government has an obligation to share the wealth of our state and ensure that kids in Howard, Mobridge, and Edgemont have as much chance to succeed as kids in Sioux Falls. We can't just leave education to each individual town. As a state are a community, and education is one vital area where we should act like one.
"Of course, I could turn that the other way and say to people, “Mad about the state’s budget cuts? You have only yourselves to blame. You elected the Legislature. If you don’t like having to cut your school budget or opt out, then you should hold your legislators accountable… and elect new ones!"
...and that is exactly spot on, Corey! You certainly understand that at this point in the game, the Super Majority Republicans hold all the power cards in Pierre.
Yes, you should continue to inform the constituency through the South Dakota Blogosphere of these developments. But, right now, that's all you can do.
Unfortunately, the majority of South Dakota voters set up a misguided situation for themselves that we all must live with until it is corrected in future elections.
Some times, people have to learn the hard way. In this case, there is no other way around it until 2012.
Necessity is the mother of Invention. Communities love their children and want a strong K-12 education. That's why local school districts will continue to bail out the negligence of South Dakota's Governor and legislature when it comes to K-12 funding. We are enabling our leaders when we opt out, which falsely helps them feel they are doing the right thing. In fact, they are creating a dumber generation than your generation with less opportunities to learn and grow.
The biggest problem education faces is its inability to effectively market their story to the public and to legislators. On the other hand, legislators receive their donations and letters of support from people who are uninformed about today's education demands. Some of them haven't set foot in a school building in 40 years, have no idea what current curriculum is required, the social issues a 50% divorce rate brings to school buildings and feel sports are the largest portion of school budgets when activities actually are only around 4%.
Governor Daugaard receives accolades from those same people which falsely reinforces his belief that his actions are prudent, not caustic. K-12 Education needs to revamp its lobbying practices, hire real lobbyists not related to education unions. Districts need a huge dose of effective marketing over a long period of time to turn the opinion that schools waste our tax dollars. What happened during this year's legislative session will be detrimental for an entire generation of young learners.
Yankton voted not to provide for their students as did Sioux Falls.
i remember my grandmother had a bumpersticker on her car which read, 'don't blame me. i voted for mcgovern.' let's print some that say, 'don't blame me. i voted for heidepreim.'
my mother is from huron and despite my having lost my teaching position due to this debacle, she is vote against the opt out. she said that we have to hold pierre responsible for their portion of the funding. you go, mom!