Alcester Union & Hudsonite Online

PIERRE – One simple sentence in a bill moving through the South Dakota legislature may be the saving grace for the Greater Scott and Greater Hoyt School Districts in South Dakota. The bill, which was introduced by Sen. Ken Albers (R-Canton), Sen. Royal McCracken (R-Rapid City), Rep. Margaret Gillespie (D-Hudson) and Rep. Gordon Peterson (R-Wall), would allow students in those two districts to continue attending school across state lines in Hawarden and Akron, Iowa.

In last year’s legislative session, Senate Bill 157 was passed that would require South Dakota school districts with fewer than 100 students to consolidate with another school district by June 30, 2009. The bill affected thirteen South Dakota school districts, but several West River schools were considered “sparse” because they were more than 25 miles from the next school, and would not be affected.

SB157 was also bad news for students in Greater Scott, which currently has 13 students, and Greater Hoyt, which has 50 students.

Greater Scott lies between the Alcester-Hudson School District and the Iowa state line. Those students attend school at West Sioux in Hawarden. Greater Hoyt lies between the Alcester-Hudson and Elk Point-Jefferson School Districts, where the students there attend Akron-Westfield in Akron.

SB99 would exempt these districts from the mandatory consolidation called for in SB157 by adding a sentence that reads: “In addition, the provisions of this section do not apply to any school district that contracts with a school district in another state pursuant to § 13-15-11 to provide for the education of all its resident children if the schools in the school district in the other state that the resident children attend are no more than fifteen miles from the border of the resident school district.”

The bill was introduced in the Senate on January 16 and referred to the Senate Education Committee, who heard testimony on January 22. Greater Hoyt school board member Greg Heeren, Greater Scott school board member Cindy Waterman, Akron-Westfield superintendent Ron Flynn, and attorney Larry Nelson of Canton, a registered lobbyist hired by the Greater Hoyt district, testified in favor of the bill. No opponents of the bill testified at the hearing.

Heeren told the committee that travel for students could create a hardship, with some students living within just a short distance from Akron, but if they were forced to attend another school district, the trip from home to school would be much longer. He also cited what he felt were other economic benefits to leaving things the way they are now.

“We have many South Dakota residents, most of them being Hoyt residents, who are staffed at the school,” Heeren told the committee. “We actually bring back more in salary and benefits than what we spend in tuition to the school, so we think it’s important to keep that in place as well.”

Waterman told the committee that students in West Hawarden and West Akron have attended school in Iowa for over 40 years and receive a good education.

“I’m the president of the Greater Scott School District, but greater still, I’m also a mother of four and quite concerned about the future education of our children in the district,” Waterman said. “We do have a quality education superior to anything within 25 miles of us.”

Flynn told the committee that under SB157, Greater Scott and Greater Hoyt were unique with respect to other South Dakota schools that are affected by SB157, given the fact that they don’t operate an actual school, but have equity in the Iowa schools.

Flynn also testified that if Greater Scott and Greater Hoyt students were forced to attend schools in neighboring districts they would likely be attending smaller schools than they currently attend. West Sioux has 577 students, while Akron-Westfield has 678 students. Neighboring district Alcester-Hudson had a fall enrollment of 322 students, while Elk Point-Jefferson had a fall enrollment of 721 students.

After the hearing the committee voted unanimously to send the bill back to the Senate with a “Do Pass” recommendation.

The full Senate voted on the bill the following day, with only two Senators voting against the bill, Gene Abdallah (R-Sioux Falls) and Dave Knudson (R-Sioux Falls).

Sen. Jim Peterson (D-Revillo) approved of the bill.

“The main reason I'm going to support the bill is because I truly believe in local control, and this comes down to a local control issue,” he said. “The people of these districts made that decision 40 years ago, and I think we should honor it.”

Sen. Ben Nesselhuf (D-Vermillion) also supports the bill.

“Every goal we set forth with this bill that was passed last year, not that I supported it, but every public goal we set forth is being achieved by these two school districts, and I think it makes sense to carve out an exception for them,” he said.

School consolidation has been a hot topic for the past few years in the South Dakota Legislature. Many legislators felt that very small schools were more expensive to operate and that the students were receiving an inadequate education. The crux of SB157 was to send the students to larger schools that were less expensive to operate and offered more options to students.

“I hear legislators express two reasons for forcing consolidation of small schools,” District 16 Sen. Ken Albers said. “Reason number one; because the schools are small, they are not able to provide adequate course curriculum for students. The way I see it, Hoyt and Scott students aren't really attending small schools and courses offered in both schools seem very adequate and perhaps exemplary. Both schools offer a curriculum adequate to allow for their students to qualify for the South Dakota Opportunity Scholarships, with heavy emphasis on math and science. Reason number two; it is not cost effective to support small schools, because the cost per pupil is too high. Greater Scott has received no state aid for education for the past three years. Greater Hoyt receives state aid education, but the money they get for being small pales when compared to the money the state would have to provide, by virtue of a rather complicated formula presently in law, to get them consolidated. The cost to consolidate would likely run right about $900,000. It would take 40 years of small school payments to the district to catch up with a number like that.”

“Sometimes you have to make tough decisions and sponsoring this legislation was a tough decision,” District 16 Rep. Gillespie said. “But I represent District 16, and even though students in Greater Scott and Greater Hoyt attend school in Iowa, they still live in District 16. I’ve worked very hard for education in the legislature, and in the end, I need to do what is best for the students.”

Gillespie said she has always been opposed to forced consolidation and voted against SB157 last year.

“The bottom line for me is that forced consolidation isn’t good for the community and it tears people apart,” Gillespie said. “I realize schools have financial concerns, but at the end of the day I need to be able to look these kids in the eyes and know we’ve done the right thing for them.”

Gillespie herself is no stranger to consolidation. She attended Hudson High School in the mid 1980s when the Alcester and Hudson School Districts merged. She recalled that it was a difficult time at first, but said she was happy she was able to attend Alcester-Hudson her last two years of high school and felt she received a better education because of it.

“I am certainly aware that there are strong feelings on both sides of this consolidation issue. Unfortunately, depending on how you happen to see this issue, folks who live in these districts are rather remotely located from other South Dakota communities and they have for many years become very closely associated with these Iowa communities,” Albers said. “For the most part, residents of Hoyt and Scott have gone to school, done their business, have held jobs, gone to church, and buried their dead for many years in these Iowa communities. It is important to point out these South Dakota students have always attended high school in Iowa, and 40 years ago all students from grade school through high school began attending school in Iowa.”

“So, I am sponsoring this bill because I think it is the right thing to do. This is one of those times when I have to make a hard call and I have to call it the way I see it.” Albers said. “I see no merit in forcing consolidation just because we can. These students are receiving an excellent education in a cost efficient manner.”

Supporters of SB99 contend that state tax funding shouldn’t be allowed to be spent on out-of-state education as is the case with the Greater Hoyt district, and because of the fact that they don’t operate their own schools, property owners in Greater Scott and Greater Hoyt pay significantly less in property taxes. Some supports call the two districts a “tax haven” because Greater Scott and Greater Hoyt comprise a fairly large land area with only a few families with school-age children.

Landowners in the Greater Scott district pay property taxes ranging from around $2.38 for ag land to $7.96 for commercial property, as compared to the Alcester-Hudson district at around $8.01 for ag land on up to $18.62 for commercial property.

Greater Hoyt landowners pay from around $4.52 for ag land to $11.68 for commercial property. Residents in the Elk Point-Jefferson district pay from around $7.87 for ag land to $15.03 for commercial property.

Union County Auditor Carol Klumper said that if Greater Scott and Greater Hoyt were forced to consolidate with other South Dakota school districts, it would increase the valuation of that district.

SB99 was read to the full House last Thursday and was referred to the House Education Committee for review, where the bill currently resides as of press time Tuesday. That committee will also hear testimony before sending it back to the House for a vote.

Sponsored by: