The South Dakota House Education Committee has delayed a crucial vote on House Bill 1009 by one week to fully assess its financial implications. This decision underscores the cautious approach lawmakers are taking as they consider the introduction of educational empowerment accounts in the state — a move that has sparked a heated debate over school choice and the allocation of state funds.

Heather Baxter

Heather Baxter

House Bill 1009, spearheaded by five Republican members of the 15-person House Education Committee, aims to create educational empowerment accounts. These accounts would allow parents of private school students to utilize state funds — precisely $7,405.19 per student — for various educational expenses, including tuition, textbooks, and transportation costs.

Representative Dylan Jordan has taken the lead in advocating for the bill. However, during recent testimony, he was unable to provide comprehensive answers regarding the bill’s potential fiscal impact on South Dakota. Jordan, admitting he is not a teacher, failed to satisfy committee inquiries about the costs the bill would impose on the state and the Department of Education (DOE), particularly concerning staffing and audits.

In response, the committee voted with a 9-5 majority, with one member excused, to postpone the vote until January 29. This delay will allow the Legislative Research Council to prepare a fiscal note, providing a clearer financial picture. Estimated costs could exceed $112 million, should all 15,185 private school students in South Dakota avail of the proposed accounts. Meanwhile, opponents estimate potential costs could soar to $157 million.

Among the varied landscape of educational policy in South Dakota, this bill highlights a critical ongoing dialogue about public and private education funding. South Dakota residents have diverse opinions on school choice, reflecting broader national conversations about the evolving educational landscape.

Incorporating local perspectives adds a layer of poignancy to the debate. The bill has garnered support from groups like Young Americans for Liberty and Americans for Prosperity, alongside parents advocating for enhanced educational choices. Proponents argue that the proposal empowers parents, creating a dynamic marketplace of educational options which may better serve diverse student needs.

In contrast, opponents, including Disability Rights South Dakota and the South Dakota Education Association, caution that redirection of funds from public to private schools can undermine public education. They cite concerns about accountability and equitable resource distribution, as private institutions often aren’t subjected to the same regulatory standards as public schools.

Ultimately, the debate reflects broader concerns about educational equity and the distribution of state resources in South Dakota. Stakeholders are weighing the promise of choice against potential costs and the impact on public education quality and accessibility for all students, regardless of economic background.

A separate, yet related piece of legislation, House Bill 1020, sponsored by Governor Kristi Noem, also adds a layer of complexity to the conversation. This bill proposes the allocation of $3,000 in education savings accounts for private or alternative education, with a tiered eligibility system based on income levels. With DOE Secretary Joe Graves’s support, this alternative approach underscores the multifaceted nature of ongoing educational reforms in the state.

The future of House Bill 1009 remains uncertain as South Dakota continues to navigate these challenging decisions. The outcomes will shape the educational landscape for families across the state, framing the opportunities available to students and echoing broader shifts in educational policy nationwide.

As South Dakota’s legislative session continues, all eyes are on the House Education Committee as they prepare for the next steps. The ultimate question remains: will HB 1009 open doors for students, or close them by straining state resources?