By 
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem gave her budget address to South Dakota Legislators Tuesday, Dec. 3. Courtesy photo from the Dakota Scout.
School choice advocates are fracturing over a bill outlining Republican Gov. Kristi Noem’s $4 million plan to provide families with public money for private school, homeschooling or other forms of alternative instruction.
After sponsors released a draft of the bill Wednesday, Families for Alternative Instruction Rights in South Dakota announced Thursday that it opposes the legislation in its current form.
The group said on its website that Noem’s educational savings account program, as drafted, would invite government interference into the currently unregulated alternative instruction space.
Meanwhile, public education advocates have coalesced as an outspoken group, arguing that the program would erode public education in the state.
And some lawmakers oppose the plan on budgetary grounds, due to lower-than-anticipated state revenues. Noem has proposed cuts across much of state government and an increase of only 1.25% for public schools, Medicaid providers and state workers.
Rep. Brian Mulder, R-Sioux Falls, called the proposal a “luxury item.”
“I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea, but with the current budget situation, we’re not funding other parts of our government,” Mulder said. “How can we take on more when we can’t fund these core obligations?”
The mounting opposition creates headwinds that Noem must face to get the education savings account bill to her desk, while she prepares to resign as soon as this month to accept President-elect Trump’s nomination to serve as secretary of Homeland Security. Assuming she’s confirmed by the U.S. Senate, she’ll be succeeded as governor by Lt. Gov. Larry Rhoden.
The proposal comes as alternative instruction enrollment accelerates in South Dakota. It nearly tripled over the last decade from 3,933 students in 2014 to 11,489 — now making up about 7% of school-age children in the state, according to the state Department of Education.
South Dakota’s annual legislative session begins Tuesday. Noem has support for the ESA bill from some top Republican legislative leaders, including incoming House Majority Leader Scott Odenbach of Spearfish and incoming Senate Majority Leader Jim Mehlhaff of Pierre, who jointly pre-filed the bill. Speaker-elect of the House Jon Hansen, R-Dell Rapids, is also sponsoring the bill. It’s one of several school choice bills that public school advocates said they anticipate this session.
Rep. Scott Odenbach, R-Spearfish, on the House floor during the 2024 legislative session. South Dakota Searchlight photo by Makenzie Huber.
FAIRSD: Keep alternative instruction ‘unharmed’ and ‘free of government money’
State Department of Education Secretary Joseph Graves said in a news release Wednesday that the Noem-backed proposal ascertains that parents are the “first and primary educators of their children,” adding that the proposal offers options to students whose needs aren’t met at their public school.
“Education savings accounts unleash the positive, powerful forces of competition in the educational marketplace,” he said.
Odenbach said a “vast majority” of homeschool families are “excited” about the program.
Julie Christian, president of FAIRSD, said the Education Savings Account program should be established as its own lane of education separate from current forms of alternative instruction. That would allow alternative instruction families to withstand any proposed changes to state regulation and oversight, she said.
“FAIRSD has been communicating regularly with the school choice proponents over the past year,” the organization wrote on its website. “We are confident they understand our position and the desire to keep alternative instruction laws unharmed and free of government money.”
Americans for Prosperity-South Dakota, which is part of a national political advocacy network supported by the billionaire Koch family, helped draft the bill, said Deputy State Director Jen Beving. She hopes the two organizations can “iron out” the language and their differences.
“We’re all on the same side,” she said. “I hope we’ll be able to come together on this. I want to protect homeschooling freedom as much as anyone else.”
Critics question proposal’s low-income prioritization
Beving said Americans for Prosperity pushed back against initial language to restrict the program to low-income students.
Instead, the bill allows all non-public school students to apply for education savings accounts. If accepted, a student would receive about $3,000.
The program only sets income-based priorities if there are more applicants than money allocated to the program. Otherwise, it’s on a first come, first serve basis.
The first tier of income eligibility is limited to $86,580 for a family of four, Odenbach said. The second tier is limited to an income of $115,440 for a family of four. South Dakota’s median family income is $71,810, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Such limitations “cover a large share of South Dakota families,” said Sandra Waltman, director of public affairs for the South Dakota Education Association, which represents public school educators.
“Is this really aimed at helping low-income families?” Waltman said. “Or is this finding a way to divert public dollars from public schools?”
Odenbach said that assessment is inaccurate.
“The overall intent of this is to stand up a good, solid program and make it available to as many people as possible,” Odenbach said.
Waltman said $3,000 per student doesn’t cover the cost of tuition for private schools, meaning low-income families could struggle to pay for the remaining tuition and other educational services. She said lawmakers should ensure all students receive a good education, rather than diverting money from public education and “picking and choosing” which families receive the Education Savings Account money.
Jen Beving
But it’s “a really good start,” Beving said, adding that lawmakers should provide educational options for students who don’t succeed in the traditional public school system.
The details of the program — how the program will be operated and audited, and how purchases and applicable schools will be approved — are largely left unanswered. The bill reserves those for the state Department of Education.
The bill does not include any additional oversight or regulation for alternative instruction families. Alternative instruction students do not currently have to take standardized tests or submit portfolios to the state to prove educational progress. Public school leaders have criticized the lack of oversight since Noem and legislators changed alternative instruction laws during the 2021 legislative session.
“You can call it accountability, but it makes it pretty clear that we’re not going to be asking folks to show whether or not these dollars taxpayers are investing are actually educating students,” Waltman said.
Budgetary constraints depend on lawmakers’ spending priorities
The state’s tight budget might prevent other lawmakers from supporting the Education Savings Account plan, but not Odenbach.
“Getting education right” by maximizing parental freedoms and cutting education costs “is a necessity,” he said.
“If we’ll ever have meaningful, long-term property tax relief, we need to require our public education system to evolve and change and decentralize,” he said. “Part of that is through a program like this to empower parents to decide where the best education option is for their child.”
Sioux Falls Republican Rep. Tony Venhuizen serves as vice chair of the House budgeting committee. He’s “open to the idea” of an education savings account program, but said because of this year’s budget, its success will come down to “a question of priorities.”
Relying on it to dramatically cut property taxes for South Dakotans is unrealistic, he added.
Venhuizen has introduced a bill to cut education-related property taxes for homeowners by increasing the state sales tax rate from 4.2% to 5%.