The South Dakota Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case where parents say rural schools do not receive adequate state funding. "A judge ruled in 2009 in favor of the state, which says that courts cannot force the legislature to spend money or change education policy," Nomaan Merchant of The Associated Press reports. "On Tuesday, an attorney for the parents said rural schools are penalized because they have fewer students than districts in Sioux Falls. The state currently provides for a base amount of $4,804 per student, with small schools getting more for each student."
"This is the crisis point, in rural South Dakota, especially," parents' attorney Ronald Parsons Jr. told Merchant. "We can't just herd everyone into certain counties." Lawyers for the parents, who are backed by about 100 of the state's 161 school districts, "have said that some schools cannot afford to offer advanced math courses and other services that students need," Merchant writes. "Some districts have trouble hiring teachers because they offer lower salaries, and others cannot afford to fix buildings or build new schools. The state disputes that view, saying districts get enough money to provide an adequate education."
"Several justices said they were hesitant to declare the school funding system unconstitutional and force the legislature to make changes without suggesting an alternative," Merchant writes. Justice Judith Meierhenry noted, "The legislature needs to have more direction than that." Assistant Attorney General Diane Best argued the state was not responsible for poor student performance. "There are students who are not taking advantage of that," she said. "There isn't a system that can guarantee that a student will be motivated to come to school." Meierhenry, a Sioux Falls resident, also noted funding wasn't the only factor in rural schools inability to attract teachers. "It's more than just salaries," she said. "No one wants to live there." (Read more)
No comments:
Post a Comment