In a significant setback for South Dakota’s current administration, the House Education Committee decided against two major educational proposals on Wednesday, raising questions about the state’s educational policies. This pivotal moment unraveled at the South Dakota Capitol in Pierre, a city rich in history and tradition, reflecting the complexities of modern governance.

Kristi Noem
Former South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, remembered for her transformative policies, proposed a $4 million Education Savings Account program before ascending to the position of U.S. Homeland Security Secretary. This program, aiming to redefine educational funding, was supported by her successor, Governor Larry Rhoden, who has sought to continue many of Noem’s initiatives.
The committee’s 9-6 decision against House Bill 1020 indicates a broader debate over educational funding in South Dakota, a state where rural community schools and tribal education play vital roles. The bill promised up to $3,000 per student to offset the costs of private schooling, homeschooling, or other forms of alternative education.
The opposition, consisting largely of public education proponents, argued fervently against the reallocation of public funds, highlighting the lack of oversight and questioning the long-term sustainability of public schooling. Among these voices, the Great Plains Tribal Education Directors emphasized the potential detriment to tribal and rural public schools, underscoring the essential nature of public education for South Dakota’s diverse population.

Larry Rhoden
A competing proposal, House Bill 1009, presented by Rep. Dylan Jordan from Clear Lake, sought an even larger budgetary allocation of $142 million. Despite the potential financial strain, the bill promised more expansive school choice opportunities but with even less regulatory oversight, raising concern among both policymakers and education professionals.
Rep. Dylan Jordan was seen actively discussing the merits of his proposal, which ultimately faced rejection by a narrow 8-7 vote. He remained steadfast in his vision, citing the need for greater educational freedom and innovation.
Despite the setback, supporters of the governor’s plan, which included private school administrators, argue for the necessity of alternative educational pathways to foster competition and enhance teacher remuneration in smaller setups.
The political landscape within the committee also highlighted an intriguing divergence of opinions, as Rep. Phil Jensen opposed the governor’s initiative while backing Rep. Jordan’s proposal, indicating a nuanced stance on education reform.
In response to critiques, an amendment was introduced to House Bill 1020 distinguishing students utilizing Education Savings Accounts from those in traditional alternative instruction programs. This move was aimed at addressing concerns about potential regulations encroaching on homeschooling freedoms.
Despite these complex dynamics, the door remains cautiously ajar for these bills’ resurgence. Procedural strategies might still bring both proposals to the House floor, provided a third of the House representatives express support.
For South Dakota, where educational policy is deeply interwoven with its cultural and socio-economic fabric, the debates surrounding House Bills 1020 and 1009 represent more than legislative votes. They are a reflection of underlying values about public responsibility, educational access, and fiscal stewardship.
The ongoing discussions spotlight South Dakota’s crucial balance between traditional public school systems, tribal education, and the growing demand for alternative education forms. As the state’s decision-makers navigate these waters, the outcome could shape not just educational policy, but the future of South Dakota’s learners.
Communities across the state are anticipated to watch closely as these developments unfold, understanding that the right educational framework is foundational to nurturing the next generation of South Dakotans.
While the immediate future of educational funding remains uncertain, stakeholders continue advocating for approaches that recognize and respect the intricate array of educational needs within the state.
As the state moves forward, the need for dialogue between government, educators, and communities becomes paramount to crafting an equitable and prosperous educational system for all South Dakotans.
Email inquiries to South Dakota Legislative contacts can be directed to [email protected].