Another kid, a good friend of mine, stood up and spoke impromptu after me; it wasn’t often that these presentations prompted rebuttal. He made some powerful counter-arguments to my speech, presenting the case for what he called Intelligent Design.

My friend’s speech shocked me at the time. I didn’t know how anything that I had said could prove so controversial. I hadn’t felt that there were religious implications or counterbalancing scientific ideas. I had simply accepted what I had read in National Geographic as undisputedly true. 

I carried forward the need to accept that just because something is written up in a national journal doesn’t necessarily make it valid or fact! 

  I draw your attention to the recently ejected State Senate Bill 83.  

 This highly commendable initiative, put forward by Senator Jeff Monroe, R-Pierre, set out to encourage freedom of debate in the classroom. Specifically, it would have allowed teachers in Science to present balanced arguments about the full range of scientific questions from those concerning the potential for human involvement in environmental change to human cloning. The fact that it has been effectively shot down by opposition from school boards and the educational establishment is a damaging attack on free speech. This action impoverishes the education of our children, and reeks of the sort of micromanagement that seriously demoralizes educators. 

 Teachers are supposed to challenge students’ minds, not demand intellectual conformity; to do otherwise would not only do our young people themselves a great disservice, but spell the end of innovation. Part of this educative process should involve exposing students to the genuine debates that exist about a range of scientific issues. Every generation (in general, and especially the scientific establishment it seems) may feel that they have it “all figured out”. But it is arrogant to assume always that there are clearly defined right answers to broad questions of societal debate, even concerning questions relating to evolution and the origins of the Universe. We abandoned Einstein’s widely supported concept of the “Static Universe,” to give just one example. 

 Science is NOT about certainty, however the opponents of this Senate Bill clearly believe that it is, on a whole range of fundamental questions, questions that go to the heart of our core beliefs and indeed to the sound running of the economy. They believe them so strongly that the First Amendment has effectively been cut to ribbons in our classrooms; many great teachers go silent for fear of administrative reprisal if they seek to promote discussion and debate. Others are demoralized and seek alternative career paths.  

 What is demoralizing to many in South Dakota is the way in which the ideas of social conservatives, in particular, seem to be targeted for elimination in our schools. It is particularly dangerous when one school of thought is singled out in this way as somehow being too extreme or even “corrupting” to young people. Well respected (and by no means conservative) Professor of Political Theory at Queen’s University, Colin Farrelly, has commented on the deeply ingrained negative views that many of his students have developed about conservative ideology, ideas that stem from a lack of real engagement. “As citizens our students will be expected to engage with conservatives,” he writes, “and so, at the least, they should develop an understanding of (if not an appreciation for the potential value of) conservatism.” 

 I declare that public education should not be simply about delivery of a body of (tightly censored) information and so-called “right answers,” but should be more concerned with providing our children with the ability to think and argue for themselves, thereby preparing them to play an adult part in American society and to fulfill their civic duty. That societal and civic duty is closely entwined with the most American of virtues, which is the right to dissent, and to debate in forum. Please for a moment picture in your mind Norman Rockwell’s painting entitled “Freedom of Speech”. For me, the image of the common man, eyes slightly lifted above the horizon, boldly speaking his mind among his peers, superbly sums up my feeling about the importance of fostering an intellectually courageous youth, as opposed to tomorrows breed of trained victims of deceitful establishment propaganda. In American society we know and are ready to accept that a winning intellectual argument can be delivered, with no lesser value, by a humble beggar, who speaks the truth, as opposed to by an Ivy League elitist who may propagate falsehood.  

 Without any desire to shock those neighbors that abhor mention of religious belief or any utility derived from it, I feel the need to quote from John, Chapter 9, and the verse that ends “…whereas I was blind, but now I see.” It is a story that underlines the reality of human fallibility, and the ability to change your mind. I would contend that this powerful statement of humility is equally applicable to people of no faith, or of other faiths, as well as Christians. And it applies even to our most brilliant scientists, who also potentially suffer from blindness, just like the rest of us. Indeed, a humble nature implies that we are comfortable with our inevitable lack of certainty about so many things. As Socrates said, “The only true wisdom is to know you know nothing”. We all “endeavor” to know, but can never achieve true knowledge. Or, as Isaac Newton is reputed to have put it, when looking back on his scientific career: “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” Wisdom only comes by way of a willingness to doubt. We want to instill this kind of wisdom in the students of South Dakota.  

 The question I have for the opponents of the SB-83 is, “Why do you fear debate?”  

 Our various School Districts already control the body of knowledge that you must be able to command in order to be able to graduate, so what is the harm of allowing proper evidence based argument of some areas of scientific understanding. To allow our teachers to stimulate such debate, where it is appropriate, and also advances educational objectives, cannot be understood as forcing any personal acceptance of any particular viewpoint on the part of our students. That would actually be the standpoint of those who compel students to complete assignments under mandatory headings such as that, currently in existence, which requires them to uncritically set out the scientific underpinnings of the Big Bang Theory. 

 Quite to the contrary, it encourages students to think hard about core issues and empowers them to come to their own conclusions, as free Americans. To take any other course is to follow the part taken by the rulers in ancient Athens, who condemned Socrates as “an evil-doer and corrupter of the youth,” when in reality, Socrates just encouraged his students to think skeptically, by the process of challenging debate. 

 The Bill, which the South Dakota State Senate has now conclusively sidelined, sought to preserve the idea of the value of the teacher as the initiator of discussion that Socrates embodied. And we should not be afraid of this. If we prevent genuine intellectual discourse, argument, and classroom debate, as opponents of the Bill so passionately sought to do, we risk ending up with a classroom that will one day be taught by a computer that is “APPROVED by the School District”. And in this I smell the repugnant stench of the world that George Orwell described in “1984”. The opponents of the bill are fostering and supporting an institutionalized distrust for teachers.  

 Of course, the opponents of SB-83 argued that the proposed legislation was merely a subversive way to facilitate the presentation of Intelligent Design arguments in our high school classes. They want to lead us to believe that Senator Monroe, and the many who supported him, are guilty of some kind of conspiracy theory to undermine received scientific wisdom.  

 But these arguments are very far from convincing. Just for starters, it should surely be acknowledged that there is absolutely no mention of any idea whatsoever connected with religion in the text of the Bill. Indeed, the only people who have brought up the issue of Intelligent Design are those who oppose Senator Monroe’s proposal. 

 And why should issues connected with science not be subject to discussion and argument, as are questions about our history. There are those who suggest, for instance, that the Spanish American War was about sugar, and hence about America’s economic interest, as opposed to a reaction to justified outrage in the face of Spanish Government atrocities. Or that a policy of accommodation, rather than strength, lay behind the downfall of Communism. My belief is that those historians are wrong, but I encourage debate and analysis of the area. I support the right of those historians to make their case. 

 And I believe strongly that debate is strongly needed in the Science classroom, just as it is in the History classroom. Only ignorance will reign supreme without it. I do not believe that, just because a possible ‘rogue’ teacher may pop up and corrupt our children’s minds, as Socrates was accused of, we should condemn our students to a factory style, debateless, and ultimately intellectually bankrupt education. 

The newly-created Blue Ribbon Task Force, which drew together twenty-six diverse members, both elected and appointed, was given the urgent task of accomplishing the Governor’s mission. The body first met at the beginning of July 2015 and gave their report—thirty-four pages including recommendations—early in November. They effectively decided that the only way to obtain revenue to increase teacher salaries was to raise the level of the statewide sales and use tax – a measure that would hit South Dakota taxpayers hard. No attempt was made to come up with any creative or intelligent solution to achieving the goals that the Governor had set; in particular, there was no attempt to answer the key question they had been asked to address – why are we being forced to pay more for less when it comes to our state education system?

Unnecessary Meddling and Key Areas of Concern Neglected

Instead, the task force has come up with a whole host of problematic recommendations. Significantly, they have made suggestions that would effectively result in greater central control of educational resources statewide. They have recommended, for example, changing the Per Student Allocation (PSA), which they claim is inequitable. What they have failed to realize, is that in actual practice, this has been a hugely effective budgetary tool for schools, ensuring that funding follows the students, and those who attend larger schools are not disadvantaged by mere circumstance. It is a fitting reward for school district excellence that a parent can effectively award that institution additional funding; by contrast, withdrawing a child punishes a poorly performing school. They have also suggested the capping of school district reserves, backed by the threatened withdrawal of a percentage of General Fund revenue following non-compliance in this area.

In an even worse attempt to butcher our funding model, the Task Force would like to transform the allocation of some taxes so that revenues are spread across school districts, supposedly ensuring fairness in educational resourcing for all – a reform which they indicate could be paralleled with similar unwelcome centralization of revenue generated from traffic fines and wind farms taxes, amongst other sources. Policies regarding our resources that are generated out of envy of ones’ neighbor are not the way forward in our great state – even if they are advocated by liberals elsewhere.

You don’t have to read far to identify the numerous contradictions and lack of logical consistency in the report. On page 21 of the document, for instance, the Task Force sets out its concern about the adequacy of infrastructure investment; while on page 16, the same body writes that capital outlay funds are actually robust and need to be unrestricted for disbursement. It is difficult to know what to make of this kind of intellectual confusion when it comes from a highly qualified body of elected state representatives and educators.

Their measures, recommended by the group, pose a significant threat to educational standards statewide. Recruitment of staff through the reciprocity initiative, for example, which is strongly endorsed, would allow teachers certified in other states to be immediately recognized as qualified to teach in South Dakota schools. This is extremely concerning on a community level, as it works against other efforts to promote consistency in teaching quality and ensuring that teachers are adequately equipped for culturally sensitive education which reflects our local values, concerns and priorities. As a measure, it seems to me to be somewhat akin to taking an automobile to be repaired by a boat mechanic (except education is more important than that!) or boarding a plane when the pilot has only ever flown a helicopter. As Governor Mellette once said, “The province of legislation is… to promote a common education, which is the preserver of all.” How can we guarantee any kind of common, locally sensitive education in South Dakota, when out-of-state educators are routinely assigned to our schools without meaningful checks taking place?

Gratuitous Tax Rises

It is suggested in the Blue Ribbon report, that in order to attract our best teachers, and effectively compete in the national employment market, we need to provide teachers with an average annual salary of $48,000, which is up from the current level of $40,000. To back up this viewpoint, the Task Force provides many pages of illustrative pie charts and statistics although disappointingly, these statistics have been handpicked to fit a politically pre-determined narrative supporting what can essentially be referred to as the ‘monetary rape’ of South Dakotans in order to access competitive education for our children.

I believe other charts— which appear to have been deliberately left out of the report— would support very different conclusions that could negate the need for tax rises. For instance, it could be shown that funding allocation from the General Fund for Education, which includes both K-12 and Higher Education, has swung by over 4% toward Higher Education across the last decade (4% of $352 million is $14 million). Our K-12 system cannot sustain continuing growing favoritism in the General Fund toward Higher Education initiatives, prioritized over our residents’ children’s learning.

In fact, the Task Force has made decidedly dodgy use of statistics throughout their report. For example, the argument is made that education spending in South Dakota has fallen behind that of other sectors of government that are of comparable importance, such as healthcare. But in making this comparison, the year 1996 was picked, for reasons undisclosed, as the baseline for the assessment of the state’s recent, supposedly disappointing, annual growth in the level of educational spending. Could it be possible that this year was selected in order to make use of our explosive growth—of over 279%—in Medicaid spending after that point as an excuse to spend more in Education? Anyway, is it really the case that since we are getting bloodied in Medicaid, we should be fair and allow ourselves to go into deeper debt distress in the realm of education too?

Returning to the statistics, the report recognizes that per student spending on capital outlay is significantly higher in South Dakota than it is in other states; in fact, it is $405 dollars more than the national average. Of course, this should lead us back to the pressing question asked by Governor Daugaard when first setting up the Task Force: Why it is that the state spends more on education, but receives less return in terms of school standards? But the report makes no attempt to answer this pressing question. Perhaps the body lacked the motivation to propose constructive and meaningful reforms, when the ‘easier’ alternative of simply recommending tax increases, with commensurate opportunities for the distribution of pork to interest groups, was readily available. ‘Big government’ enthusiasts across the nation appear to have adopted the knee-jerk reaction of increasing taxes whenever they are faced with a problem, no matter the context of the situation.

By comparison, no alternative recommendations were suggested by the Blue Ribbon Task Force for what would be a more helpful policy of reallocating state funds. Instead of pouring millions of additional taxpayer dollars into increased education spending, we should be cutting out some of the extravagances in our state education system and redistributing the resources currently being wasted. The Governor has vowed to make ‘bold’ decisions, based on the people’s demand for better education in our high schools, so I’ll make a few suggestions that wouldn’t be considered anything less than bold.

First, in the report it is determined that we have 14 students per teacher in South Dakota, which is a ratio to be proud of nationwide. It is the wish of the Task Force to preserve that ratio. I agree with the desirability of this objective. However, it must also be recognized that this may not be an achievable goal as a result of the so-called ‘educational crisis’ based on teacher shortages for K-12. (To give the reader some perspective, it should be noted that our ratio is far superior to the 20 to 1 teacher that exists nationally, or the 23 students to 1 teacher in Minnesota.) It might be more realistic for us to manage an increase in the ratio, possibly scaled, so that older students have larger class sizes than younger ones. If South Dakota budgeted on a ratio of eighteen students to one teacher, this would still be superior to the national average, and this alone would allow us to achieve the Task Force’s objective singlehandedly by refocusing funds. Consider it as being 22% fewer teachers to teach the same amount of kids. If its 9,300 teachers at $40,000 then that makes $372 million. Reallocate 22% and that is nearly $82 million. That would give us an average teaching salary of over $48,000.

Second, there has been well-founded criticism, not least from the state’s schools, of recent extravagant increases in the salaries of university professors within South Dakota’s Higher Education. In a Rapid City Journal article, published on the 16th of December by correspondent Bob Mercer, it was stated that even “…officials in the state Bureau of Finance and Management thought the 3.2 percent for university faculty was “generous” when inflation has been below 1 percent in the past year.” It is too late, of course, to reverse these increases, but future pay raises should be commensurately less extravagant.

Third, we should reduce the unhealthy dependency of Northern State University (NSU) and Dakota State University (DSU) on General Fund revenue. Northern State University and Dakota State University are, in stark contrast to equivalent institutions elsewhere in the state, such as South Dakota State University (SDSU), the University of South Dakota (USD), and the Black Hills State University (BHSU), gravely dependent on state taxpayer revenue in their current operations. Drilling into the detail, it may be shown that whilst SDSU and BHSU today receive roughly the same amount from their state general funds as they do from tuition revenue, in the case of NSU and DSU, the General Fund contributes no less than double the amount that comes from tuition. Reforms are obviously needed to address this disparity.

Semi-privatizing or privatizing NSU and DSU completely over a three-year time frame would necessarily raise the contribution made to operations by tuition costs and force both institutions to dramatically reorganize in order to keep their student offering competitive. The potential saving for the state is dramatic: over $7.5 million of annual revenue could be reallocated from DSU and over $10.5 million from NSU.

(Incidentally, I recognize that the University of South Dakota is not as financially well-off as either SDSU or BSHU. But it does have a rather healthy endowment. In fact, it has more than double that of SDSU, even though fewer students are enrolled. I believe we should have a benchmark that pulls funds from colleges back to facilitate equal General Fund contribution for tuition revenue. This would have the benefit of forcing bloated institutions to undertake reforms. USD would painfully use its burgeoning endowment while they face the transition to a more financially fit model. That would add $12 million back to the General Fund each year.)

Fourth, South Dakota higher education institutions should be compelled to abstain from the ‘arms race’ in spending on non-educational facilities to compete for students nationally. Instead, a low cost, no-frills approach to tuition should be adopted. It should be recognized that keeping public college tuition costs as low as possible (without making unnecessary General Fund sacrifices) is a higher priority than college campus expansion. That is the accountability that must be displayed to the taxpayers.

This no-frills approach could certainly ultimately lead to lower student tuition fees. The ambition should be to slash public college tuition costs by 30% for all South Dakotan children by 2020, thereby removing obstacles preventing our students from attending. This fits very much with the ideals of the great former Governor Arthur Mellette –“All pupils who have thus finished the academic course of instruction should be admitted to the higher educational institutions of the State by a certificate from the county authority and without further examination. We believe that under such a system the attendance in the higher institutions will be largely and rapidly increased, and their running expenses to the State will be greatly diminished.”

Fifth, we should place emphasis within our state universities, on serving the needs of local people as opposed to those who come from outside of South Dakota. At SDSU, 36% of students today come from out-of-state, and 7% of the students are international. These students pay only about $1000 extra in annual tuition a year to attend, yet benefit from our state subsidies provided to the university.

As an illustration of what draws my ire, imagine an average, hard-working South Dakotan family paying even more in sales tax, as the Blue Ribbon Task Force currently recommends, so that Mike or Mallory, from Massachusetts, can attend a college that is heavily subsidized through their tax dollars and then return to Massachusetts upon graduation. This is far from smart. We should clearly be addressing the need to raise out-of-state tuition if we want to resolve the issue of South Dakotans indebting themselves to educate someone else’s children rather than their own.

(The argument that the current extra tuition payment for out-of-state students already covers their missing tax contribution is, of course, flawed two-dimensional thinking, given the sheer level of state subsidy that exists for higher education in South Dakota. Remember tax dollars contribute twice as much as tuition fees to the running of NSU alone. The current extra contribution of $1000 in no way covers this expense. If it did, of course, then this would imply that the state government could pull out all general funding of its higher institutions, and this would only require South Dakotan students’ tuition fees to rise by $1000, which is nonsense.)

Another question, by the way, that should be asked is why our own homegrown rural students choose to attend Agricultural Colleges outside of South Dakota, if they wish to farm or ranch our unique South Dakota soil. A funding priority should be placed on our higher education institutions to promote the state that we actually are, over the cosmopolitan state that some others may wish us to be.

Finally, we should also seek to make savings outside of the area of education. For 2016, according to the Governor’s budget, an increase in $30 million dollars to South Dakota Executive Management funding, in relation to Governor Daugaard’s own office and cabinet staff, has been recommended. That is over a 10% increase that I would scrutinize, particularly when compared to the Governor’s recommended 1.5% increase in all education.

To give one more example, the Corn/ Soybean/Wheat check-off fund should be partially redirected to absorb the expense of the Agricultural Experimentation Station. That will save the state no less than $10 million a year. (Each fund will add enough to the per bushel cost to cover 40% of the total Agricultural Experimental Station’s expense. At the end of the year, we should then review their respective actual share of grain production of South Dakota. That review will result in a producer refund check, where necessary, taken from any fund that did not require allocated funds to contribute their fair share.) Since grain producers are the direct beneficiaries of the Agricultural Station, it seems suitable for those producers to take on the cost of this facility.

These funding changes, without changing the student ratio, would result in a potential annual saving of over $40 million to apply to K-12 teacher salaries.

So the way to get to the $75 million target, set by the Blue Ribbon Task Force, should be founded on reallocation of money from the General Fund; we should also make hard but necessary decisions and consider avoiding expansion of other programs that South Dakotans may want, but do not need. Paying our K-12 teachers an adequate salary is more important than expanding the scope of the state government’s assumed responsibility over the people.

Other legislators have been promoting options without a tax raise. Currently, State Representative Lance Russell is proposing an excellent bill that would redirect South Dakota lottery revenues to pay for the salary increases and thereby entirely fund the proposed teacher salary enhancement fund (TSEF).

I also believe the funding for the teacher pay raises that this Task Force was established to rake in should be also be targeted toward benefiting those teachers currently on lower salaries (say those earning less than $50,000 a year). Of course, this is grossly above the $40,000 a year current average level, which is the rallying cry of the Blue Ribbon Task Force. Such targeting will have the effect of allocating our dollars to the teachers who are most in need of pay increases, whilst still raising the headline state average effectively.

It is often a good idea, particularly in matters related to fiscal prudence, to look back to the founders of our state for guidance. As a figure none other than Doane Robinson explained, “The limitations upon taxation for State purposes made it exceeding difficult to finance the necessary operations of the young state.” It was this necessary discipline, which these limitations imposed on South Dakota at its founding, that gave us our tradition of fiscal responsibility and spending restraint. So repeat after our first Governor: “The present school system is too expensive, inefficient and lacking in that unity and system so necessary in educational matters in order to obtain the greatest public benefit from the public schools for this most important public institution.” – Governor Arthur Mellette. 

This Blue Ribbon Task Force was not up to the task of recommending the sort of hard political decisions that South Dakota urgently needs to take. Instead, it recommended an “easy” solution – we will all pay more for our education system through taxes; and when they can’t make those dollars stretch far enough… another study like this will show how you didn’t dig deep enough yet again.

Say no to the tax and spend, Blue Ribbon Task Force – and identify educated solutions instead!

A Race to the Top Scorecard, created by the National Council on Teacher Quality – an education reform think tank supported by the Bill & Melissa Gates Foundation – for state administrations, is littered with pictures of a cartoon man running. The unappealing imagery suggests a state government sprinting into the unknown, and appropriately the guidebook mentions that states can receive extra points, out of a total possible 500 points, for faster implementation of the Department of Education’s Race to the Top program. This 4.35 billion dollar program was developed to incentivize dramatic education reform at a statewide level to remedy the supposed inadequate standards of the states. The Department of Education, current federal administration, most state government leaders, and assorted boards support the statement that American children are underachieving in education to such a high level that the profound effects of the Race to the Top program is a needed response so that our children will succeed in a globalizing society.

If the federal government says a state can earn points for implementing a specific program in a contest where funds are awarded based on total points earned, is that not then an endorsed federal government program? When billions of federal tax dollars are earmarked in a national recession for specific programs that transform public education, is that not federal coercion of state behavior? The public is taxed and that money is then used as a carrot on a stick to entice states to reform public education through the Race to the Top program. The funds are not offered for a state’s own discretionary use to bolster its educational system, but only those states that follow the advised prescription will be awarded funding. Also, nearly all the categories that exist to receive points from the Race to the Top program are highly subjective and open to interpretation for judgment of compliance. This lack of clarity has led to accusations of political favoritism, such as in the case of Delaware, where a large number of apparently undeserved points were awarded to the state. This federally pushed program suggests strongly that there is one path to success and if your state is not on that path then it will be exempted from the benefit of the federal coffers.

Race to the Top directly offers 70 points, under the category Standards and Assessment, for adoption of the Common Core Standards. Thus far, Common Core Standards only apply to English and Math. However, the Common Core State Standards Initiative is recommending textbooks to states that will most likely become the primary textbooks for English and Math because of the fear of poor test results by school administrations, and expansion of standards for Science, Art, and other subjects are already being independently developed according to the national CCSSI website. Also, the Common Core Standards can be flanked by additional desired state standards, which would be tested separately, but the tests can not be changed so ignoring undesirable standards is futile. Because only the National Governors’ Association and Council of Chief State School Officers can change the copyrighted tested standards, states that choose to adopt Common Core Standards voluntarily diminish their sovereignty on issues of public education.

Common Core Standards is only one of many financially supported reforms through the Race to the Top program. Race to the Top is often thought of as merely a federal co-opting of K-12 education, but it also now will contain, for 2014 proposed, the “Preschool for All” program that espouses a fervor for “high quality” preschool education similar to the recent support for the Affordable Care Act. Methods are supported in the Race to the Top program that threaten teachers with dismissal if their students do poorly, such as on standardized tests, which disincentives any curriculum diversity. The Common Core Standards program also takes up nearly all of a teacher’s time through sets and subsets of required topics to be tested thereby limiting the diversity of children’s curriculum. It is truly stripping away an educator’s freedom to teach. The enactment of Common Core solidifies a measure of no value for any South Dakotan approach to educational standards where it concerns English and Math.

The U.S. Department of Education cannot by federal law establish a national curriculum. However, the National Governors’ Association has been co-opted by the federal government through the coercive Race to the Top grant program, which through required testing effects curriculum. It is acting as a third party to accept responsibility for the creation of the Common Core Standards, by those interested in centralization of education by keeping the federal government in the blind spot of people sensitive to federal encroachment upon states’ rights. Those that dream of an educational utopia across the United States, where state lines are no longer an obstacle to national uniformity, have the most to gain from the Race to the Top program. It is not a question of if these reforms can improve our school systems or student performance, it is a question of the value of state sovereignty. With the stripping away of a people’s local cultural influence on students’ education it provides the effect of nationalization without direct federal responsibility through the debatable voluntary competition of the Race to the Top program. In South Dakota, Common Core Standards was passed through the Board of Education without chamber-wide approval, and South Dakota did not receive enough points through the Race to the Top program to be awarded any federal funding. It is ironic therefore that our state leaders would be willing to give away our sovereignty over education standards without even achieving a monetary benefit for the state, and not surprising that several State Representatives and Senators are fighting to eliminate the Common Core Standards in South Dakota before planned implementation.

As an employer I know that if I offer adequate compensation the potential employees will apply. Unlike the illogical members of the Board of Regents I also know that if new businesses locate in South Dakota then the local higher education institutions will offer programs that are attractive for potential students that may desire to apply for a job at those new businesses. However, the Board of Regents in its perverse wisdom will probably suggest additional funds to educate blindly for unknown jobs, that have not been produced, at businesses that don’t yet exist based on this press release.

No real deterrent exists for a company in finding a skilled workforce if the need arises. Migration to our state will occur if jobs with reasonable compensation, through salary and benefits, are offered. We have a competitive edge over many other states through our reasonable state tax system that attract both businesses wishing to setup on South Dakota soil and also potential out-of-state job seekers considering relocating to our state. The Board of Regents despairingly imagines a South Dakota with so many skilled job offerings that South Dakota’s educational system can’t keep up with the demand for candidates through our state graduation rates.

The availability of several higher education institutions in South Dakota is a more valid talking point than the factory production of graduates, no different than the presence of adequate police protection being more valid than the number of speeding tickets issued as a measure of performance. With six universities and colleges, complemented by numerous private educational entities, we have more than adequate educational opportunity especially considering our small population when compared to the rest of the nation.

The Board of Regents suggests a strange requirement that all jobs developed in South Dakota should be filled by current South Dakota school children. That requirement is unnecessary if your goal is simply that South Dakota should continue to be financially stable and her people prosperous. A college graduate will always seek out opportunity that best fits his or her purposes and attempting to keep them captive is a fool’s errand. In conclusion, this embarrassing study should be torn up and thrown on the heap of misguided and disingenuous intellectual garbage commonly produced by ever short-funded and overpaid government boards.