The first of what will likely be many bills seeking to tackle the governor’s proposed education savings accounts was heard this week.
However, some fail to see a difference between this program and taxpayer funded private school vouchers.
HB1009 was heard in the House Education Committee Wednesday morning. The bill would provide taxpayer monies to families seeking alternatives to public school education, such as private or homeschooling options.
Clear Lake Republican Rep. Dylan Jordan is the prime sponsor of the proposal.
“Nationwide, we have seen the leftist, the LGBTQIA2S+ communities, and the woke agenda make their way into our public school system," Jordan said. "It’s not as bad in South Dakota, but it is here even in rural school districts. We need true school choice here in South Dakota.”
It’s similar to a bill brought by Republican leadership creating education savings accounts, but Jordan said that measure has too much involvement from the state Department of Education.
Even among education savings account proponents there was some debate over the quality of the bill before committee. Florence Thompson is the president of South Dakota Parents Involved in Education, a conservative education advocacy lobby. While supportive in concept, she questioned the fiscal responsibility of the proposal.
“I think the amount is too large, I would suggest it be reduced to the $3,000 which the governor has in her budget, and I would suggest a cap of $1,000 per family," Thompson said. "If a family has 10 kids, they could collect quite a bit of money. There is certainly duplication involved in homeschooling.”
Those concerns are echoed in the opposition. Heath Larson is executive director of the Associated School Boards of South Dakota.
“This is a voucher bill," Larson said. "The bottom line is this bill diverts significant taxpayer dollars away from public South Dakota schools for private education, who do not follow the same rules as public schools including accepting all students. Adding government subsidies to fund private education, especially in an extremely lean budget year, is irresponsible.”
This bill awaits a fiscal note to determine the full scope of its potential impact and was deferred until Jan. 29 by the committee.