More on the Education Lawsuit
While on some websites they're celebrating the judge's motion on the educational lawsuits, it's leaving others scratching their heads. Here's what was said about the motion at KELOland.com
Why does this matter, you might ask? One observant reader noted to me this morning that we might consider the fact that "advisory opinions are a no-no because the courts don’t offer policy positions – they resolve real controversies."
And that leaves us where we're going to be. In a controversy which will always be unresolved.
In fact, I'd say that the court taking this position is bad. Because all it does is leave us arguing after it's all said and done. Either the court has authority to resolve a legal dispute, or they don't have the authority to resolve a political question.
Tuesday, the judge ruled the courts cannot determine the amount of money lawmakers can allocate toward education.So, a decision on constitutionality is going to be made with no power of enforcement? Well, then does that make it just an advisory opinion?
"She essentially said I'm not going to order the legislature to pay any money, so I'm going to grant that part of your motion so what I will retain the power to do so is interpret what the constitution means as it related to education," South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long said.
Long says they'd hoped the judge would dismiss the case all together. He says you can't fix what isn't broken.
"In 1994, this same lawsuit essentially was brought and judge Zinter decided that South Dakota students were receiving an adequate education and a constitutional education in South Dakota. I don't think that has changed," Long said.
Why does this matter, you might ask? One observant reader noted to me this morning that we might consider the fact that "advisory opinions are a no-no because the courts don’t offer policy positions – they resolve real controversies."
And that leaves us where we're going to be. In a controversy which will always be unresolved.
In fact, I'd say that the court taking this position is bad. Because all it does is leave us arguing after it's all said and done. Either the court has authority to resolve a legal dispute, or they don't have the authority to resolve a political question.
Comments
I made the 1:24 comment. It was my first and only comment here.
Is that what courts do? Especially the Supreme Court?
Seems to me that this is the happy medium line that the courts should take. Not "legislating from the bench" while still making a determination of whether the constitution is being upheld.
And, if the courts determine that the legislature is acting outside of the constitution - well, then, wouldn't that be statement of what they should be doing?
It's one judge's opinion, which she has ruled she can do nothing about. What's the purpose of continuing on? Do we need to spend more taxpayer money on this? School districts are shelling out money while at the same time complaining they don't have enough, the Attorney General is diverting resources to defend, and the state is paying for a judge, court reporter, clerk, and jurors that could be better utilized in cases where the court can actually take some action.
Who cares other than those who want to complain about something other than what the topic is about!
The issue or topic is more important than what most have posted. So I would say even this post if off topic.
People need to look at the broader picture of funding education.
Question:
Can the State South Dakota and the local tax payers afford to fund all the schools we have with declining enrollment.
Someone somewhere has to understand this and has to come into reality and soon.
Besides, I'm trying to hammer out posts, do research, eat a meal and get back to work on time in my hour alloted. You try to do it without proofing.
Don't like the way I write? It is a free country.
I do feel in the end the state, tax payers and all would save with consolidation considering the declining enrollment. I guess I will have to find time to put the thoughts together better.
No matter where the kids are, they are worth roughly the same. The amount the comes in through the small school factor is about 3% of the total state aid. That will not continue to grow, and will become a smaller and smaller portion of the ed budget in the coming years when the legislature gives inflationary increases.
In just a couple years, it will become such a small part of the budget, that it's impact will be negiligible.
Especially when declining enrollment reverses. And, that's coming.
When 9:07 shows you her statistics and sources, I'll show you mine.
what? how not?
when 2 schools consolidate: one superintendent instead of two; one principal intead of two; one teacher teaching 20 students instead of two teachers teaching 10 students each; one building to maintain instead of two.
So, you say you have data that suggests more people are moving INTO communities that currently benefit from the small school factor?
What kind of vodoo do you do?
Growth in the I-29 Corridor and in the Hills will outpace and offset declining enrollment.
There's probably different projections available for that, I'm not sure. The one's I've seen say it's going to happen.
But, I don't care who you are, who your boss is, or where you come from - there will not be more students in small schools in five years than there is today. The amount delivered through the small school factor will go down.
oh what a joy it must be to live a simple, misinformed life.
the consolidation of administration doesn't change the per-student allocation - the amount per kid remains the same, so the amount of taxdollars going to education stays the same.
as far as - "one building to maintain instead of two" - you're going to have a hard time getting two communities 15 miles apart to agree to close elementary schools. No one wants to send 5-year olds on a bus for 30-45 minutes a day. Especially when the whether's bad.
AND...in alot of consolidation situations, new buildings had to be built to accomodate the new kids. better check your information.
Also... with administration. Well, in small districts, superintendents wear several hats - most of the time they are a superintendent and the principal. If two districts combine, there would likely have to be a superintdentdent AND a principle.
As far as 1 teacher teaching 20 kids - find me a school district in South Dakota where the student/teacher ratio is 20. Go ahead. I will give you a billion dollars if you can.
Unrealistic. Uninformed. Lerex.
Sure the per student state spending will be the same, but with far fewer expenses, due to consolidation there will be much more of that money to spend on kids and teachers, not duplication of services and buildings.
Only two ways to get more money to schools - big-time consolidation or more taxes.
If you ASSUME the best case scenario, a district will save MAYBE 15% on salaries and benefits. MAYBE. If student to teacher ratios climb, and the DISTRICT ONLY USES ONE BUILDING.
But, what you don't understand is that consolidation will never happen if everyone insists on closing all buildings - people flat out don't want to send really young kids on buses for hours a day.
Another thing that people don't consider - costs of transportation. There won't be savings in that area, for sure... costs will increase.
Another thing people don't consider - if you move to a larger district, there may be a need for MORE ADMINISTATORS. When you get 600 kids in a school, you might need someone else to be the Athletic Director. You might need A superintendent, K-8 principle, and High School Principle.
Your math is tooooo simple. Because you don't understand.
Oh, and there's another way to increase education funding. How about limiting state government to 3% or less, and diverting the money to education.
Live on what you make schools live with for a while.
I don't want my tax dollars funding your inefficent prison system. You keep arresting the same drug offenders over and over, giving them free room and board.
I don't want my tax dollars funding our SIX state universities. Do we need SIX universities. Six university presidents? Do we need to duplicate programs? When kids go to college, they don't need to be close to home. They don't have to be bused. I believe in higher education, but... WYOMONING only has one University. We only need TWO. Let SDSU run USD, DSU and Northern, consolidate and specialize. Let SDSMT run Black Hills, consolidate and specialize.
No one talks about consolidating the Regental programs? Why not? They're the one taking all the state's money. They lean on the Gov. and promise scholarships and big campaign donations, and they get their way.
Rid the state of the Board of Regents Bureaucracy! Consolidate management. Consolidate programs. Save the salaries of those presidents that make a half million dollars!
$1.5 billion a year x 15%= $225 million dollars a year!!!
More than even the goofballs suing the state are asking for.
Maybe my math is tooo easy, but that's pretty simple to understand.
Plus, I don't believe your 15% number, I think 25% is closer. It's not hard to figure out what our problem with education is in SD. We've got 66 counties, and 167 school districts.... Duh!
P.S.- Next we try to get that number of counties down to 15, or so. Sixty-six makes about as much sense as 167 school districts.
What a misleading crock. You MUST be a legislator. First, its not $1.5 billion. That's an overstatement... by about 500 million.
AND, that 15% is just on SALARIES, and the example is taken from the Department of Education, so go talk to them about their example. The cost of operating facilities and transportation could vary greatly, depending on the consolidation. Plus, let's not forget having to build a new building to accomodate double the students.
Second - even if all the districts that are "small by choice" consolidated, that would only reduce the number of districts we have by about 25.
Unless, of course, you're suggesting that Harrisburg, Tea, West Central and Brandon Valley all consolidate with Sioux Falls. And Meade, Douglas, and New Underwood Consolidate with Rapid City. And Meade, Belle Fourche and Lead consolidate.
Maybe that's what you're suggesting, I don't know.
You know, while you're consolidating governments, why don't we just team up with North Dakota? Think of all the cost savings if we could just have one set of overpaid bureaucrats.
where did 1.5 billion come from ?
Why does anon 10:05 keep going ha ha? I don't see anything funny about it. That's a huge amount of money coming out of our pockets.
I tend to agree with 9:15. Over a billion dollars a year, and the schools scream louder than ever. Will there ever be a time when they say "that's good enough". Now there's something to say Ha Ha about !
Go look at the general appropriations bill from 2007 - HB 1281.
State aid to education (K-12) is $308 million - ONE FIFTH the amount you pokes are quoting.
I don't know where you pull the $1.5 billion figure, but that might include 1) all federal money 2)all state money to the board of regents 3) all federal money to the board of regents 4) all other funds spent by the board of regents.
It's disgusting that you actually use a number that large to stagger people with.
If it's federal moeny, it's not coming out of your pocket. I don't know how you can claim $1.5 billion, when the state budget is just over $1 billion. It's crazy.
Anything over the state budget is the welfare our state gets because some people think its a real good policy to take handouts.
Some people think its real good policy to steal taxpayer dollars from other states because we can support our own programs sufficiently.
You know, I wonder if the federal government is ever going to look at South Dakota and say, "You know, 2/3 of your budget is OUR MONEY. For every dollar you send us, we send you back 2! You are terribly inefficient. Time to partner up with North Dakota."
this is haha,, I did say K-12,,,the regents budget is included in "education" dollars comments from misinformed expert-wannabee's
In fact property taxes for k-12, dropped almost 6 million dollars between 99 and 04
State aid in 04 was 266 million, local effort was 243 million, thats 509 million total. FOR K-12, about the same as it was in 1996, 11 years ago.