State Can't Enforce K-12 Consolidation?

Small schools are as valuable as small newspapers. Anderson Publication's latest Montrose Herald brings to my attention something I should have caught earlier: that the school consolidation law passed by the South Dakota Legislature last winter may not have the teeth they thought it did.

This novel read of SB 157 comes from Huron lawyer Rodney Freeman, who pokes a stick in the state's eye by pointing out they failed to include enforcement. The law says that if a district's enrollment falls below one hundred, the district must prepare a reorganization plan within two years. If the district doesn't do it, the state Board of Education will prepare a reorganization plan. Lawyer Freeman notes, "The statute doesn't say anything about what happens if the voters turn down the plan" [no author cited, "Attorney Questions Consolidation Law," Montrose Herald, 2007.12.13, p. 7; reprinted, it appears, from the Associated School Boards of South Dakota Bulletin (59:9), 2007.10.30]

Get it? Let your enrollment drop below one hundred, do nothing, wait for the state to draw up a consolidation plan, then get together with your neighbors and vote it down. The state might still not write you a check, but they can't force you to shut the doors. School saved!

Well, probably not. The Herald article turns to Assistant Attorney General Scott Swier, who tells Freeman to put the thought of fun and exciting litigation out of his head:

The intent of SB 157 was to move the agenda of school consolidation forward. Now that people have had a year to reflect, new legislation will provide more direction and clarification [Swier, quoted in Herald and Bulletin].

In other words, the state has had time to figure out it screwed up, and the 2008 session will patch that legal hole faster than you can say, "Joke's on you, Mike!"

But don't think a simple thing like legislation will stop Freeman and the small schools. Lawyer Freeman may have another trick up his sleeve:

The only way, in my judgment, the Department of Education can clean that up is if the Department has to put a plan together, then they have it not voted on by the people.... That’s what they’re going to have to do to if this statute is going to have the effect that the legislature wants. They are going to have to deny people the right to vote... It's going to be interesting come January if they think they can take away people's right to vote [Freeman, quoted in Herald and Bulletin].

Oh ho! Sounds like Freeman and the school boards may be working on a local control angle. Taking away money may be an easy sell when other, bigger districts stand to gain by carving up the little guys. But taking away the public's right to vote -- no one but the bureaucracy gains from that. I don't know how toothy that legal argument may be, but small schools are entitled to every argument they can muster to defend their existence.

For once, lawyer Freeman and I agree: January should be very interesting. All the more reason to keep reading The Madville Times!