Elli Schwiesow on Education Funding

Dakota Voice continues our series from an issues-interview with Independent District 32 senate candidate Elli Schwiesow.

Schwiesow, a life-long Republican, is running against incumbent Democrat Tom Katus and Republican Stan Adelstein.

In this series, Schwiesow has discussed her stand on the issues of taxes, Second Amendment rights, universal preschool, energy, Native American issues, and Initiated Measure 11. Today she discusses education funding.

"I am not in favor of education regulations or mandates both state and federal that contribute to cost but little to education," said Schwiesow. "Eliminating mandates would put more money in the classroom and whenever education money is spent, it should be spent as close to the student as possible--books, blackboards, computers, desks, etc. If the student touches it, it has priority over other uses."

On the current education funding lawsuit which has some South Dakota schools suing the state government for more taxpayer funding, Schwiesow doesn't think it will succeed.

"I do think the school funding formula will change in the coming legislative session," she said. " There is lower population density in the western part of the state and we have always been on the losing end of education funding. The school boards and the citizens have brought it to the attention of their representatives, and I think the legislature is ready to make some changes."

She acknowledges that more consolidation is probably a reality, and that it will be tough, but are necessary.

Schwiesow said, "School consolidations will be a reality, though exactly what the cutoff number will be has yet to be determined. But we've been consolidating schools for many years, and while it is sometimes hard, it can become necessary. I think it's the state of Utah which only has five school districts and five superintendents for the whole state."

She pointed out that the general fund has gone from $70 million to $79 million in two years, and the state aid has gone from $28 million to $32 million in that same time frame. This shows that funding has gone up without any real increase in the number of students enrolled.

All the same, Schwiesow sees a lot of good in the South Dakota education system.

"I went to a Board of Regents meeting and they discussed how 70% of our high school graduates continue their education," said Schwiesow. "About 60% of those kids go to school here in the state of South Dakota."

She would also like to see an expansion in vocational education.

"Everyone needs an education but not everyone needs or wants a college education," Schwiesow said. "Give our young people the opportunity to learn skills that will bring them better job opportunities."

In the next and final installment, Elli Schwiesow talks about health care in South Dakota.

Dist. 32 Independent Candidate on Initiated Measure 11

Voters in South Dakota Legislative District 32 will soon decide who will represent them in the state senate.

This year, they have three choices: incumbent Democrat Tom Katus, Republican Stan Adelstein, and Independent Elli Schwiesow.

The entrance of Schwiesow in the race as an Independent is interesting because she is a life-long Republican who has held a number of official state and local Republican Party positions.

Schwiesow ran against incumbent Adelstein in the 2006 primary and defeated him. However, Adelstein then threw his considerable wealth and support behind Democrat Katus; Katus subsequently won the 2006 general election.

Rather than spend a large sum of money to defeat Adelstein again in the 2008 primary, and be forced to spend another large sum of money to defeat Katus--presumably with Adelstein's help again--in the general election, Schwiesow chose instead to wait until the general election was over and enter the race as an Independent.

Many have argued that, even as an Independent, Schwiesow represents the values of the Republican Party better than Adelstein. After all, the Republican Party has a pro-life and pro-marriage plank, yet in 2006 Adelstein fought strongly against a pro-life measure and a marriage protection amendment.

Yet because of Schwiesow's strong support of the 2006 pro-life Referred Law 6, her opponents succeeded in convincing the voters she was a "single-issue candidate."

Dakota Voice has featured a series of articles from an interview with Schwiesow on several important issues. They have included taxes, Second Amendment rights, universal preschool, energy, and Native American issues.

This week, Schwiesow discusses abortion and the new pro-life measure, Initiated Measure 11.

"I support restrictions on abortion," Schwiesow told me recently. She believes the issue of life is of critical importance, and is something as fundamental as the principles which founded our country.

Schwiesow says, "The Declaration of Independence is generally regarded as the founding document of this nation and it declares for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It boils down to how we define 'life.'"

Informed consent laws are one way pro-life people have sought to reduce abortions. South Dakota passed an informed consent law in 2005 which requires abortionists to inform women of the consequences of an abortion, and that it ends a human life. That law was blocked by a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood, but this summer the injunction on enforcement was lifted by the South Dakota courts.

Judge Raymond W. Gruender indicated in the decision that South Dakota's informed consent law makes some very valid points:

Planned Parenthood presented no evidence to oppose the common understanding that a fetus is a living organism while in the womb, the court majority said.

"The State's evidence suggests that the biological sense in which the embryo or fetus is whole, separate, unique and living should be clear in context to a physician," Judge Raymond W. Gruender wrote for the majority.

Schwiesow says she supports such laws.

"It is interesting that present day medical ethics require you be told of the nature of your illness, the possible treatments for that illness and the potential complications of any particular course of action in treating that illness," said Schwiesow. "Not so with abortion. It seems that anyone requesting an abortion should be denied the very same information that is required for any other medical procedure."

She says that while she would prefer a measure which recognize the value of all human life, she supports Initiated Measure 11, even though it has exceptions for rape, incest, the health of the mother and the life of the mother.

Of the exceptions, Schwiesow says, "I'm okay with them.I would vote for any measure which lessened the number of abortions occurring. Dr. Donald Oliver [Rapid City pediatrician] said that if a building was burning and it was filled with people, would you not save as many as you could, or would you say 'If I can't save them all, I won't save any.' I thought about that for a long time because the exceptions were a smoke screen in 2006."

On whether Initiated Measure 11 would pass where Referred Law 6 did not, she said, "It was phenomenal that South Dakota had 44% standing on 'no exceptions,' or more than one in three. I'm confident this one will pass because it now has the exceptions that many people feel should be there. I'm still concerned about the babies conceived in rape, or babies that doctors thought wouldn't live, yet later we found out they were perfectly healthy."

Even though IM 11 has exceptions, the pro-abortion campaign now objects that the exceptions are "too strict" and "burdensome" to the woman who wants to abort her child. Schwiesown disagrees.

"I don't think the requirements for the exceptions in IM11 are too strict," she said. "Rape is an evil, evil crime and when something like this happens, law enforcement needs to be involved. The perpetrator needs to be arrested, and that involves coming forward, seeking police protection, emergency room treatment. Without these requirements, anyone could just say 'I was raped' and get an abortion with no proof that a crime had actually occurred. Especially in a situation where alcohol was involved and the woman might not even have a clear memory of what happened during a sexual encounter. For genuine crimes of rape, we can't sweep it under the rug."

Schwiesow commended Governor Sarah Palin and her husband for giving life to their son Trig who has Down syndrome, especially when so many abort such children. "What a statement on the value of human life."

Though she is concerned about a number of issues, the value of innocent human life remains near and dear to Schwiesow's heart.

Next time Schwiesow talks about education funding.

Elli Schwiesow on Universal Preschool

When a Republican challenges a Republican in the general election, people sit up and take notice. That's what is happening in South Dakota's Legislative District 32 Senate race this year.

Elli Schwiesow has been heavily involved in state and local Republican Party efforts for many years. But this year, as she considered the tremendous expense it would require to overcome Stan Adelstein in the Republican primary, she decided to run in the general election as an Independent.

The entire state is watching as incumbent Democrat Tom Katus is challenged by two Republicans: Elli Schwiesow running as an Independent, and Stan Adelstein who many say exemplifies Republican values far less than his Independent foe.

In the weeks leading up to the November 4 election, Dakota Voice is publishing a series of articles examining Schwiesow's position on a number of issues.

Because of her longstanding commitment to pro-life causes, Elli's foes often claim she is a "single-issue candidate." We wanted to see if that was really the case.

So far, Schwiesow has talked extensively about taxes and Second Amendment rights. Today Schwiesow talks about universal preschool.


"The legislature has seen bills advancing universal preschool for the last couple of years, and we will definitely see it again this year," Schwiesow said.

"I think we need to give children time to be children," cautions Schwiesow. "Certainly small minds are like sponges and they soak up a lot of information but a certain level of maturity is also needed to be successful in school, so no, I do not favor universal pre-kindergarten."

Schwiesow points out that no one wants to pay higher taxes, and education funding is always a challenge. She pointed to the education funding lawsuit seen this year, with school districts suing the state for more money.

"Where would additional funding for universal preschool come from," asked Schwiesow rhetorically. "Would it come from present school funding? The money isn't there."

Still, she is under no illusions that proponents of universal preschool will be back yet again in the coming legislative session.

"While our governor supports preschool, the legislature stood pretty firm against it before," said Schwiesow. "The legislature said there isn't enough money to spend on everything some people currently want, so how can we add the tremendous cost of universal preschool to that? Is government responsible for preschool and daycare programs? I don't think South Dakota is interested in going there."

She also cited numerous studies which question the long-term benefit of preschool, including the recent testimony of Stanford professor Erik Hanushek who stated preschool doesn't seem to have much in the way of long-term educational benefits; many studies indicate preschool gains have dissipated by the first or second grade.

"I've looked at the research on the effects of preschool," Schwiesow said. "Parents have been encouraged to place their children in programs 'the earlier the better.' I fell into that huge push for preschool with my youngest, and now research is finding that the 'home with mom' kid does better. There may be some benefit in the first grade or two, but those children given secure home foundations have better self esteem and tend to do better in school overall."

Schwiesow acknowledged that studies have found that there is more benefit from preschool for children coming from tough, disadvantaged backgrounds. However, Schwiesow pointed out that the state is already involved in helping many of these children on a number of levels, and questions whether any additional assistance is feasible, both from a practical and funding perspective.

Related:

South Dakota Family Policy Council Voter Guide
Project VoteSmart

Next time, Schwiesow discusses energy and what can be done in South Dakota to help meet America's energy needs.

Heated Debate on Initiated Measure 10

According to the Rapid City Journal, there was spirited debate last night at a forum on Initiated Measure 10.

The proponent was Sam Kephart and the opponent was former state Rep. Tom Hennies.

Kephart, a Spearfish businessman who lost the Republican U.S. Senate primary to Joel Dykstra in June, offered a fiery defense of the proposed law. In a voice that sometimes rose almost to a shout, he said the measure’s restrictions on the awarding of government contracts and use of taxpayer money for lobbying would help citizens wrest power from “the hands of the business and political elite” in South Dakota.

But Hennies wasn't lying down in his opposition to 10:

Hennies, a former Rapid City police chief who served eight years as a Republican member of the South Dakota House of Representatives, was no less spirited in his response. He rejected the notion of widespread corruption and wasteful sweetheart deals between business and state government in Pierre.

While I have some concerns about some provisions of the proposed law, overall I think it is a positive measure. I voted for it in "early voting" at the court house yesterday.

I don't think individuals or even private groups should be muzzled in their political expression.

But I do have a BIG, BIG problem with the use of taxpayer dollars being used to lobby for more taxpayer dollars--one egregious example of that is the South Dakota school funding lawsuit where schools were suing the state (using taxpayer funds) in pursuit of more taxpayer funds.

I don't think opponents of this measure have done themselves any favors with some of the over-the-top scare tactics I've heard.

Hearing Today on Mt Rushmore Free Speech Case

WASHINGTON — A hearing will be held today on behalf of a Minnesota man prohibited from sharing his faith at Mt. Rushmore National Monument in South Dakota. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed a lawsuit in federal court after the man was told he could not pass out religious literature near the entrance of the monument without a permit.

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed a federal lawsuit last November on behalf of a Minnesota man denied his constitutional right to free speech at Mt. Rushmore National Monument in South Dakota.

“Christians shouldn’t be told to put expressing their beliefs on hold until they get a permit. It is unbelievable that the National Park Service would deny freedom of speech at the foot of Mt. Rushmore, where four men who represent America’s freedoms are immortalized,” said ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Heather Gebelin Hacker. “The Park Service ignored our client’s multiple requests to peacefully distribute literature there, relenting only when we filed this lawsuit.”

“Christians should never be treated as second-class citizens, regardless of the venue, but the Park Service was doing just that when they denied our client’s continued requests to peacefully distribute literature there,” said Hacker.

On Aug. 9, 2007 Michael Boardley and a few other individuals passed out gospel tracts near the front entrance of Mt. Rushmore without incident or comment from park officials. The next day, a park ranger approached them and informed them they must have a speech permit. Without the permit, they could not distribute the gospel tracts.

After Boardley returned home, he repeatedly called the phone number provided by the Park Service and requested a permit. The permit never arrived, and park officials stonewalled Boardley in his subsequent efforts to obtain one.

“The Park Service should know that its denial of Mr. Boardley’s request for a permit was clearly unconstitutional,” said Hacker. “It’s our hope that this lawsuit will restore free speech and religious freedom not just for Mr. Boardley, but others at the national monument as well.”

A copy of the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Boardley v. United States Department of the Interior can be read here. ADF attorneys filed an application for preliminary injunction as well.

ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.

Palin Caved on Vouchers

As with any politician (or human being, for that matter), there will always be one or more issues where we may disagree.

As much as I like Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, I believe she caved on the issue of school vouchers.

CNS News reports that she believes vouchers are unconstitutional.

“No,” Palin said. “It is unconstitutional and it is as simple as that.”
She also said she would not support amending the Alaska Constitution.

Despite hysteria about "separation of church and state" from the Left, there is nothing in the United States Constitution prohibiting vouchers, so long as they are available regardless of religion.

But the Alaska Constitution is a different matter.

According to Article 7 Section 1 of the Alaska Constitution on public education:

The legislature shall by general law establish and maintain a system of public schools open to all children of the State, and may provide for other public educational institutions. Schools and institutions so established shall be free from sectarian control. No money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.

Do we want a public education system that is controlled exclusively by a religious institution? Of course not. And we certainly wouldn't want taxpayer funds going to support a monopolistic education system run by a particular religious organization.

But allowing families to spend their rightful portion of the per-child tax allocation for education on a school of their choice that happens to be run by a religious organization? It certainly parses both the U.S. Constitutional question and the common sense question.

The matter of clarifying or amending the Alaska state constitution is, of course, a matter for the people of Alaska to take up as they see fit, but the amendment process is a legitimate option.

The Alaska Family Council has an article by Wendy Cloyd in their September 2006 newsletter which indicates Palin's position on vouchers may be more complicated or nuanced than a quick answer can explain.

The Alaska Voter's Guide, produced and distributed by AFC, asked candidates a series of eight questions intended to vet where each stood on key pro-family issues. Number eight focused on the topic of school choice.

The question posed was: "Would you support legislation to create a system of educational vouchers that would provide Alaska students with some financial assistance to attend a public, private or religious school of their choice?"

Republican gubernatorial candidate Sarah Palin answered, "Yes." Her main opponent in the race, former Democratic Governor Tony Knowles answered, "No." The Alaska chapter of the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teacher's union in Alaska -- which does not support a voucher program -- pounced on Palin, asking her to clarify her position at their own candidate forum. But Palin's response to them left as many questions as it did answers.

She told the teachers' union that she had made a mistake on the AFC questionnaire and really meant to check, "No." "School vouchers are not permitted under the state constitution," she said in a follow-up statement. "I do support parental choice with public funding for charter, home schools, and vocational training." That's when the controversy began.

Bill Bjork, president of NEA-Alaska, told the Anchorage Daily News that it was his understanding Palin "was clearly not seeking to change the Alaska constitution in that area."

Democrats, of course, accused Palin of flip-flopping. While that is possible, could it have been that when she gave her original pro-voucher answer, she hadn't considered a prohibition in the Alaska constitution (since there isn't one in the U.S. Constitution)? Or that while she might like the idea in theory, it isn't high enough on her lists of priorities that she wants to pick a contentious fight over it?

Until we learn more, that may remain a matter of conjecture. But it does appear, even after her answer to the NEA, that she supports the concept of vouchers for most educational alternatives--just not those which seem to be prohibited by the Alaska Constitution.

One thing that isn't a matter of conjecture, however, are the Christian foundation of the education system in America.

In Colonial times and for many years after the birth of the United States, the Bible was a key (if not the key) textbook in schools.

The New England Primer was the second-best selling book in America (after the Bible). First published around 1690, there were 5 million copies in circulation in 1776...and only about 4 million people in the Colonies. It was the book used to teach children of that age to read and write. It contained Biblical lessons that would be considered quite advanced today. Even the ABCs contained theological lessons:

A – In ADAM'S Fall We sinned all.
B - Heaven to find; The Bible Mind
C - Christ crucify'd For sinners dy'd.
D - The Deluge drown'd The Earth around. (yes, they were creationists, too)

So how did Founder Patrick Henry see the Bible compared to other books:

"The Bible is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed."

Gouverneur Morris, signer of the Declaration of Independence, said, “Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.”

Samuel Adams also saw the importance of religious instruction for young minds: “Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, united their endeavours to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity…in short of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.”

Thomas Jefferson saw the Bible as an aid to making better citizens: "I have always said, and will always say, that studious perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens."

The revered Noah Webster said, “In my view, the Christian Religion is the most import and and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed…no truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian Religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 affirmed this important link between religious instruction and education:

“Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

The view that the Bible and religious training are essential to a healthy society and a free people hadn't diminished in the century following the birth of the United States, either. As Horace Greeley said, "It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom."

Even though revisionists have succeeded in almost completely severing the connection between the Bible and the public school system, shouldn't free Americans have the liberty to use their share of the tax pie to see their children educated in an institution which teaches in a fashion complimentary to their values? Especially if other institutions get better academic results, too?

Most of us agree that competition among providers of goods and services is a good thing; I don't remember much bad press about the monopoly lawsuit against Microsoft a few years ago. We usually consider it a good thing to have several department stores so we can shop around. We normally like having a number of mechanics to choose from to work on our cars. We like being able to choose our phone service from a number of different companies and plans.

Then why do we consider it a good thing to have only one monolithic education system to prepare our children to be successful adults? Especially when that education system seems to be turning out a worse and worse academic product--and even more dangerous moral product--every year?

The religious question aside, there doesn't seem to be any practical or philosophical reason why vouchers couldn't be created to help parents who wanted a better education for their children at a private secular school.

But that begs the next question: if it's okay to seek a better education for your child at a secular private school, why can you not do so at a private school that happens to be run by a religious group, or incorporates religious teaching with the academic subjects? Is it simply because we have a bias against religion? Do we have a fear of religion? Do we bear animus toward religion?

If we're honestly seeking what is best for our children, both academically and morally, shouldn't we be looking not for a one-size-fits-all solution that might work, but the best solution we can possibly find?

Or is our priority really to protect the education establishment, the feathered-nests of which it is comprised, and an agenda to sanitize religious values from the minds of our youth?

So where are vouchers on my list of public policy priorities? Important...but considerably down there. Things like national security, the War on Terrorism, pro-life issues, marriage, religious freedom, gun rights, proactive energy policy, free market health care reform, and a few others come first.

I've been educating my children at my own expense--while involuntarily funding the public education fiasco, er, system through my taxes--for some time now. I don't like the double-standard (that secularists get to use my taxes to teach their children that morality and religion are irrelevant, but I don't get to use my taxes to teach my children that religion and morality are relevant to every area of life), but continuing under this unfair system isn't as imminently threatening to the welfare of the nation as some of these other areas.

Hopefully Palin will come around on this issue, or at least see it more worthy of fighting for in the public policy arena.

Is her capitulation in this area a disappointment? Yes. Will it keep me from supporting the Republican ticket in 2008? Not in the least.

School Lawsuit Fundraiser: Brats for Brats

Great coverage at the South Dakota War College of the silly school funding lawsuit where government wanted to use taxpayer funds to sue government for more taxpayer funds.

Seems the Mitchell Daily Republic is reporting that supporters of this lawsuit are doing something which would have been more proper for them to have done from the git-go: use private funds.

Seems that since Judge Wilbur has cut them off from the public trough, they're turning to brat feeds and walk-a-thons to support their ongoing efforts to fleece the taxpayers for more money to waste.

I don't think I can add anything substantive to Pat's excellent summation of how much sense even this effort makes, but I do have something to add on a sentence in the article about Judge Wilbur's kibosh on the taxpayer funding:

Wilbur’s decision has put supporters of the suit in an ironic situation — educators seeking funding to continue a lawsuit about education funding.

Judge Wilbur's decision didn't put these money-hungry educrats in this "ironic situation;" they put themselves in that ironic situation.

Education Spending: Perceptions Versus Reality

With so much discussion over the South Dakota school funding lawsuit, a report from the Hoover Institute sheds some interesting light on people's perception of what is being spent on education.

A report called "What Americans Think about Their Schools" finds that what people think is being spent and what is actually spent are far apart.

According to the report, across the country per-pupil spending varies from $5,644 to $24,939,with an average of $10,377.

As you can see from the Hoover graph below, guesses were way off. More than 40% of respondents, guessed $1000 or less was being spent per pupil. That's a tiny bit different than the $10,377 national average--even than the $5,644 low end.

That figure of $4,231 would be even farther off, were it not for a small percentage of respondents who guessed extremely high amounts (wishful thinking?).



Maybe if people had a better understanding of just how much is already being spent, there wouldn't be such angst among some for more.

In fact, if people had a handle on must how much overhead there is in the education system and how much wasteful spending their is, they might even call for a reduction in spending until the establishment gets it's act together by trimming the fat and putting more money actually in the classroom.

Legitimate School Funding Options

More on yesterday's decision by Circuit Judge Lori Wilbur of Pierre that schools (a government entity) can't use taxpayer money to sue other government entities (the state of South Dakota) for more taxpayer funds.

This from today's Argus Leader:

Attorney General Larry Long, who is defending the state, said he was delighted with the ruling. He did not know when a state audit of schools that contributed to the coalition would occur to determine potential reimbursements. Schools paid $3,500 to $7,500 to initially pay for the lawsuit, Long said.

Long said he would pursue having school board members reimburse school districts and taxpayers for authorizing district money to support the lawsuit. About 90 schools are coalition members, but not all members donated to this cause.

Good. They should be held accountable for misusing and wasting taxpayer money.

Their justification for government suing government for more taxpayer funds? Parents and student's can't afford to fund the lawsuit on their own. Boo hoo.

Parents and students can't afford to bring this kind of challenge, and districts' involvement is logical because they're closest to the issues, he said.

"They could have bake sales to raise money, but it's impossible," King said.

If they can't afford to fund a lawsuit, perhaps they could support what really has the greatest effect on academic success: strong families and parental involvement.

A study released late last year by the Educational Testing Service made an interesting observation:

The E.T.S. researchers took four variables that are beyond the control of schools: The percentage of children living with one parent; the percentage of eighth graders absent from school at least three times a month; the percentage of children 5 or younger whose parents read to them daily, and the percentage of eighth graders who watch five or more hours of TV a day. Using just those four variables, the researchers were able to predict each state’s results on the federal eighth-grade reading test with impressive accuracy.

“Together, these four factors account for about two-thirds of the large differences among states,” the report said. In other words, the states that had the lowest test scores tended to be those that had the highest percentages of children from single-parent families, eighth graders watching lots of TV and eighth graders absent a lot, and the lowest percentages of young children being read to regularly, regardless of what was going on in their schools.

Of course, if supporting and strengthening families is too "judgmental" or would simply require too much sacrifice and hard work, maybe they could suggest cutting some of the bloated administrative expenses in the education system.

Or they can use the only legitimate recourse available to them if they're unhappy with school funding: support and vote for legislative candidates who will throw more money at the schools.

The legislature determines budget appropriations for the schools. If some parents don't believe the $7,651 per student we're spending on kids in South Dakota isn't enough, they should work to elect legislators who will tax them (and everyone else) more and spend more money on schools.

That would be a legitimate action.

But before they do, they should take a look at homeschooling families like mine who spend $1000 or less per student and get better results.

They should also take a look at the District of Columbia, which spends the most in the nation at $14,542 per student and comes in 51st in achievement.

This is an equation that always seems to escape the "smart" educrats: More Money <> Better Results.

Judge Scolds Schools Over Taxpayer-Funded Lawsuit for More Taxpayer Funds

KELO reports that it took Circuit Judge Lori Wilbur of Pierre to tell the educrats filing a lawsuit against the state of South Dakota using taxpayer funds for more taxpayer funds what average, common-sense South Dakotans already knew:

school districts do not have legal standing to seek a court judgment on the constitutionality of the state's school funding system. She says the districts also cannot pay money to a coalition to support the lawsuit.

Maybe if these educrats spent more time trying to be smart and less time trying to feather their nests, they might learn something.

If they did, they might learn to quit chasing their tail and do something productive--like educate our children, as they're ostensibly being paid to do.

Don't hold your breath, though, because the KELO piece says a lawyer for the tail-chasers says Judge Wilbur's ruling will be appealed.

HT to South Dakota War College.

The Liberal Dog Chases Its Tail

Liberals just don't get it.

Bob Schwartz over at Politics and Hypocrisy doesn't understand why rational people consider the school funding lawsuit utter nonsense while Initiated Measure 11 is perfectly legitimate.

One might as well ask why lemons are sour while red apples are sweet. One has no bearing on or legitimate taste comparison to the other.


The school funding lawsuit involves South Dakota schools (which are government entities) suing the state of South Dakota (which is a government entity) for more taxpayer funding...and using taxpayer funding to finance the lawsuit. Put another way, government is using taxpayer funds to sue itself for more taxpayer funding.

You know what that looks like, right?

And these are supposed to be the "smart people" in charge of our children's education?

Besides, as I pointed out this morning, I homeschool on a fraction of the public school budget and get tremendously better results. The educrats are using bad math: More Money <> Better Results.

Initiated Measure 11, on the other hand, is a citizen-initiated petition measure to protect the lives of 98% of the unborn in South Dakota. If the people of South Dakota vote to approve the measure in November, it will become law in South Dakota.

That is, until some pro-abortion group like Planned Parenthood sues to stop it as they did with South Dakota's informed consent law.

If and when that happens, will it be a government entity suing a government entity for more taxpayer funds?

The last time I checked, Planned Parenthood wasn't a government entity. While it's true that they receive about $337 million in taxpayer funding, that still doesn't make them a government entity.

But I suppose if you want to assume for a moment, for the sake of argument, that Planned Parenthood is a government entity, then I suppose it would indeed be just as stupid as the school funding lawsuit.

But it wouldn't be the supporters of Initiated Measure 11 initiating the tail-chasing activity: it would be the Planned Parenthood bunch suing to protect their access to a supply of blood money.

Of course, Planned Parenthood could do the responsible thing and not subject the taxpayers of South Dakota to the expense of a lawsuit...but will they? I won't hold my breath, but it really will be Planned Parenthood's "choice," won't it?

Maybe the liberals behind the school funding lawsuit (as well as the ones who would likely be behind a suit against IM 11) should just forgo the expensive lawsuits so we can have more money on hand to teach critical and logical thinking in our public education system.

With what passes for logic on the Left, society is in bad need of such training...

Schools Have No Legal Standing to Sue

Pat Powers at the South Dakota War College points to last night's Argus Leader article on the lunacy that is the school funding lawsuit.

In this idiotic exercise which is wasting everyone's time and the taxpayer's money, you have government suing itself for more taxpayer money. The schools are suing the state of South Dakota to get the state to cough up more of the taxpayer's hard-earned dollars.

How nuts is that?

Lawyers for the state said school districts are creatures of the Legislature and don’t have legal standing to sue.

“How can the state sue itself? That’s really what the issue is,’’ Jeff Hallem of Attorney General Larry Long’s staff told Wilbur. “This is all about money. This is about money from the state treasury.”

This is what I've been saying for a long time.

If schools want more money to teach kids (which is their job), maybe they should cut out some of the administrative fat from the budget and some of the extra-curricular garbage.

Here's what I pointed out over a year ago:

U.S. Department of Education statistics say teachers make up only 50.6 percent of elementary and secondary education staff, or about 65 percent if you throw in guidance counselors and aides. If the product is classroom instruction, the remaining 35-49 percent seems like a high ratio of support staff, to me.

Washington D.C. schools spend the most in our country, $14,542 per student, and as a homeschooling parent I spend a fraction of that and get better results.

More Money <> Better Results.

The education establishment should learn to deal with reality and quit making themselves look even more stupid than they already do.

UPDATE: Government Suing Itself for More Money

KOTA says three more schools have joined this ponderous, semi-ongoing lawsuit against the state of South Dakota for more education spending.

Government suing government for more money. Isn't that sweet?

The article says there are now 93 school districts participating in this farce, with 74 of them providing funding for the lawsuit.

Government spending taxpayer money to sue itself for more money. Sweet, indeed!

(And these are the "smart people" supposedly teaching our children how to be intelligent?)

That's like the guy in this picture who may just be robbing himself at gunpoint (he looks scared, so he must believe he might use violence).

This lawsuit contends that the $7651 per student spent on kids in South Dakota just isn't enough.

My family homeschools. We don't spend 1/10th of that (and it comes out of our own pocket, not someone elses) and get better results.

No wonder, with mental giants like this running the education establishment.

(Or do they just think we're too stupid to figure it out?)

Calif. Supreme Court Refuses 4-3 to Stay Homosexual 'Marriage' Decision

By one vote, California Supreme Court ignores pleas of California voters and state attorneys general to prevent needless legal turmoil nationwide

Wednesday, June 04, 2008, 12:08 PM (MST)
ADF Media Relations 480-444-0020

SAN FRANCISCO — The decision of the California Supreme Court Wednesday refusing to wait until after a vote in November on a proposed state marriage amendment to implement its May 15 marriage decision ignored the pleas of millions of California voters and attorneys general from 10 other states to prevent legal chaos, according to attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund.

“The court has not only ignored the will of the people of California, it has imposed years of legal chaos quite possibly on the entire nation. Without exaggeration, this decision is the most egregious case of judicial activism in modern American history. By one vote, the court deafened its ears to millions of California voters and pleas from state attorneys general nationwide to avoid the potential of nationwide legal turmoil,” said ADF Senior Counsel Glen Lavy, who argued before the court March 4.

Three of the justices wanted to grant the motion for rehearing filed by ADF attorneys May 22. Though the majority of the justices refused to prevent potential legal chaos, the court did agree to the portion of the motion requesting that the court officially note the status of the marriage amendment, which the California secretary of state certified for the November ballot Monday.

“Voters should take note now: same-sex couples who plan on obtaining ‘marriage’ licenses between now and November do so fully knowing that the amendment vote is going to happen; therefore, activists are simply attempting to play upon voter sympathy. These couples already have every right the state can provide, and those rights are unaffected by the decision. A desire to manipulate the democratic process and a total lack of concern for the ramifications are the only reasons a couple would not wait a few months for a vote on the amendment,” Lavy explained.

“The people of California will vote in November,” Lavy added. “The courts report to the people, not the other way around.”

A copy of the order from the California Supreme Court refusing to grant a stay of its marriage decision and granting the request for notice filed by ADF attorneys in the consolidated marriage cases, In re: Marriage Cases, which includes the lawsuit Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. City and County of San Francisco, is available here.

The text of the proposed constitutional amendment is available here.

ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

Lawsuit Filed Against NY Gov. For Ordering Recognition of Homosexual 'Marriage'

Lawmakers, taxpayers argue governor acted illegally in ordering state agencies to recognize same-sex “marriages” from other jurisdictions

Tuesday, June 03, 2008, 11:49 AM (MST)
ADF Media Relations 480-444-0020

NEW YORK — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed suit Tuesday in New York state court on behalf of lawmakers and taxpayers to halt implementation of Gov. David Paterson’s directive ordering state agencies to recognize same-sex “marriages” from other jurisdictions.

“The governor should respect New York’s marriage laws over the laws of foreign jurisdictions. The governor has no authority to issue directives which conflict with New York’s public policy. His actions are an assault on the democratic process,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum.

“The future of marriage should be decided by the legislature, not executives who take matters into their own hands,” Raum said. “New Yorkers have a fundamental right to set marriage policy through the legislative process, but the governor has ordered a radical redefinition of marriage without the consent of the governed. Ignoring the democratic process does not help the government in its duty to promote and encourage strong families.”

On May 14, Paterson issued an executive directive ordering all state agencies to review their policy statements, regulations, and statutes “to ensure that terms such as ‘spouse,’ ‘husband,’ and ‘wife’ are construed in a manner that encompasses legal same-sex marriages.” The directive instructs agencies to extend all the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples “married” elsewhere.

The lawsuit filed by ADF attorneys on behalf of New York lawmakers and taxpayers asserts that the governor acted beyond his authority in issuing the directive and that implementation of it will cause a wrongful expenditure of taxpayer funds in a state where same-sex “marriage” is not legal.

According to the governor’s office, the decision to recognize same-sex “marriages” was based in part on a decision in a state lawsuit, Martinez v. County of Monroe, which said that Empire State municipalities must recognize foreign same-sex “marriages.” However, that lawsuit has not ended and several other lawsuits on the same issue are still in the midst of litigation, making reliance upon any actions in the Martinez case unfounded and premature (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4501).

A copy of the petition filed with the Supreme Court for the State of New York, County of Bronx, in Golden v. Paterson can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/GoldenPetition.pdf.


ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

South Dakota Focus Top Stories

I tuned in to South Dakota Focus "A Year in Review" on PBS tonight. The show featured a panel of news hounds, including Pat Powers (South Dakota War College) and Todd Epp (SD Watch). The panel also included Carson Walker of SD Associated Press, Bill Harlan of the Rapid City Journal (by phone), and Greg Belfrage, a radio host at KELO AM in Sioux Falls.

I thought Pat and Todd's answers at the beginning were actually the most reasonable, stating that it's hard to judge the impact of some of the "top stories" of the year, such as Hyperion and TransCanada, since they might have a long-term impact, or they might just bubble up and not amount to anything. It's too early to tell the impact of some stories because their events are not yet fully developed.

Todd was "shameless" about how the Dan Sutton and Ted Klaudt issues had driven traffic to the blogs to discuss these moral issues.

Greg Belfrage, who has a radio show and used to publish a blog, said that most of his radio listeners aren't following the presidential campaign yet, "it's too far out." Greg floated the idea that the country might want to consider moving to regional primaries where states like South Dakota with a late primary aren't left out of the picture.

On the issue of the education funding lawsuit, Pat voiced my opinion that, if people believe public education is underfunded, then the people need to elect representatives who will vote in the legislature according to their priorities--government agencies suing other agencies for more tax dollars is silly and financially irresponsible.

The host Richard Muller asked why abortion didn't make the top 10 list, and Greg said he believed there was a burnout factor, though it's an issue that will definitely be back. Pat said that the defeat last year was due to the lack of rape/incest and health exceptions, but that no matter what happens, any bill will end up in the courts for a while.

Todd also mentioned the the Shawn Cable issue and the surprising amount of interest it generated. It almost seemed like a version of "Where in the World is Carmen San Diego?"

During the discussion of the Sanford hospital donation, Todd said Sanford was a "modern-day robber-barron." (Marx would be proud, Todd.)

In the discussion of Hyperion, Todd said he had worked at a refinery during college, and that on the downside, they were smelly, etc. but were necessary for our energy needs and also provided jobs.

The Elijah Page execution was a #1 story on many lists, and Bill Harlan said everyone in the Black Hills area was hyper-aware of it. Harlan said what struck him was the "sheer ordinariness" of it. He said it was easy, bloodless and routine, and that struck him as "kinda odd, I guess."

On the issue of the Iraq war, Greg and Pat talked about it on a personal level, of how people come together to raise support for care packages and other needs for those deployed, and how people are more concerned for their friends and neighbors who are involved, than in the politics of it.

On the subject of under-reported stories, Walker said the diminishing number of kids going into the school system and the effect that's going to have across several segments of society.

Greg said he thought the Ted Klaudt story was over-reported. He said it was despicable, but it only impacts a few people greatly.

Todd said open government/open records was under-reported and commended the Argus Leader for their efforts.

Pat said the mayoral race in Rapid City was under-reported, with things like critical emails, slimy mailings, and drunken transvestites.

Harlan said Iraq was under-reported. He said we're at war but many of us don't have to make any sacrifices.

Muller said he believed anything Native-American had been under-reported.

Harlan also talked about how huge the TIFs and Cabela's deal was in the Rapid City area.

Greg said the "nanny state" issues have really gotten out of control and are infringing on property rights.

As for the blogger panelists, I think that, regardless of ideological bent, they represented the blogosphere positively and professionally. Good job, guys!

South Dakota Scores Well on ACT

According to the Argus Leader, South Dakota's students scored 18th best among the 50 states on ACTs:

The state ranked 18th in the nation with an overall score of 21.9, up from 21.8 a year ago and ahead of the national 21.2. South Dakota scores improved in each of the four subjects - English, math, reading and science - and continued a five-year growth trend for high school students taking the college-prep exam.

As you noticed from the article, we are ahead of the national average.

Yet despite doing better than the national average, some in our state contend we are not "adequately" funding education. Some in our state contend that one part of our government must use taxpayer money to file a lawsuit against another part of our government to squeeze more taxpayer money out of that second part of our government.

Uh huh. Nice lessons to our children, education establishment: (1) squeeze the taxpayers at every opportunity and (2) if you don't have what you want, sue sue sue.

Audit of SD Coalition of Schools Approved

According to the Argus Leader, the Legislative Research Council's Executive Board has signed off an audit of the South Dakota Coalition of Schools called for by Attorney General Larry Long.

Long asked for an audit of the books of schools that support the lawsuit and of the coalition. He said it's illegal for a school district to spend public tax money to challenge a state law.

This was my main point in my Rapid City Journal column a few weeks ago: it's silly (if not illegal) for one government entity to sue another government entity for more tax dollars.

Government entities suing other government entities for more money makes about as much sense as a husband suing his wife for more hunting or fishing money, or a wife suing her husband for more money to spend on clothes.

But it appears those that need auditing the most aren't likely to get it. From the Argus:

He [AG Long] also told Guindon by letter that if an audit of the several schools were too expensive and time-consuming, then the audit should cover the coalition's books. That's what Guindon proposes to do, with the legislature's endorsement.

They can probably find out what they need to by looking at the South Dakota Coalition of Schools' books, but it's not really the group that's over the line. While I disagree with the lawsuit, it's their right to give it a try. What's uncalled for is a gov't department (the schools) getting involved in it. They should not behave as activists, but as the servants of the people, paid by the people, that they are.

If people believe the schools aren't receiving "adequate" funding, they can hire a tutor, put their kids in a private school, homeschool them, or elect legislators who see school funding issues the way they do.

That's the correct process in a representative democracy, not getting the courts involved every time we don't like something.

South Dakota Coalition of Schools May Be Audited

The Argus Leader has a story about Attorney General Larry Long's request to have the South Dakota Coalition of Schools group audited:

"The attorney general's office believes that any expenditure of public tax dollars by a South Dakota school district to challenge the constitutionality of a statute is illegal," Long wrote. He cited a 1999 Supreme Court decision involving the Edgemont School District to support his contention.

"Therefore, this office believes that it is improper and illegal for school districts to finance this lawsuit," Long said.

This echos what I said some time ago. It makes no sense that one government entity should sue another government entity for more tax dollars. Those tax dollars don't belong to either of them, but it's the responsibility of the executive and legislative branches to dole out that money legally and with fiscal responsibility.

Besides, they're already doing pretty good by any sane estimate. From my Rapid City Journal column a while back:

It claims “adequate” education funding requires somewhere between $133 million to $405 million more than the $517 million currently allocated for 2007. In the last four years, state education spending has gone up an average of about $16 million a year, and schools also have $154 million in reserve funds.

How can they save a little of the taxpayers money? Here's an idea:

U.S. Department of Education statistics say teachers make up only 50.6 percent of elementary and secondary education staff, or about 65 percent if you throw in guidance counselors and aides. If the product is classroom instruction, the remaining 35-49 percent seems like a high ratio of support staff, to me.

Our education system has gotten far too uppity. They think they're little islands of autonomy and everybody ought to just bow to their great intellect and do what every they say.

I hope AG Long is successful in demonstrating to them that they are accountable to the people, and that they taxpayers aren't their compliant subjects, to be milked for more tax dollars just because they claim they "need" them.

They are under the authority of the executive and legislative branches of government whether they like it or not, and ALL government is accountable to the people (i.e. the taxpayers).

After all, our state motto is "Under God the people rule." (not the schools or education special interest groups)

First volley fired in school funding suit against the state

By Gordon Garnos

AT ISSUE: Can a group of K-12 schools sue the state of South Dakota over inadequate funding? That question has been bobbing around for a long time, first as threats, then by the organization of about 70 school boards from across the state. Until recently there was a lot of question whether such a lawsuit could even be heard by the judiciary in South Dakota. Circuit Judge Lori Wilbur of Pierre recently announced the case can now proceed and the first volley was fired at what could be a series of preliminary hearings before the trial now scheduled to start in June 2008. (Full Story)