PARENT POWER!

South Dakota

U.S.
Rank

#46
Overall PPI Score:
57.8%
PPI Grade Key:
← Back to South Dakota state overview
A
B
C
D
F

Score:

50%

Grade:

F

Rank:

#50

There is no charter law in this state.

Fast Facts:
Charter Law Analysis:
Learn More:
Fast Facts:

Law enacted: 2016

Number of programs: 1

Statewide Participation: 720

Types of programs: Tax Credit Scholarship

Choice Laws & Analysis:

Tax-Credit Scholarship
Partners in Education Tax Credit Program

Launched in 2016, the Partners in Education Tax Credit Program provides tax credits to insurance companies who donate to nonprofit scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs), which then provide private school scholarships to students who meet income and grade requirements. Students are eligible if their family income does not exceed 150 percent of the federal free and reduced-price lunch (FRL) program ($77,006 for a family of four in 2022-23). The program has an average scholarship size of around $1729 and a scholarship cap of 82.5% of state per-pupil funding, or about $5,000 in 2020-21. In June of 2022, South Dakota Senate Bill was passed by a Senate vote of 27-5 in favor of expanding the Partners in EducationTax Credit Program. Signed by Governor Noem, SB 71 will increase the tax credit scholarship cap from $2 million to $3.5 million. Additionally it would allow children in foster care to participate in the program.

Learn More:

EdChoice Analysis on South Dakota

Federation for Children Choice Program Information

2019 ALEC Report Card on American Education

Score:

66%

Grade:

D

Rank:

#43

Lacking rigorous elementary and secondary teacher preparation programs; tenure decisions not tied to teacher effectiveness and student growth

TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT: 60%
General Teacher Preparation 58%
Elementary Teacher Preparation 60%
Secondary Teacher Preparation 55%
Special Education Teacher Preparation 55%
Alternate Routes 70%  

STAFFING AND SUPPORT: 71%
Hiring 80%
Retaining Effective Teachers 61%

TEACHER EVALUATION: 66%

TEACHER COMPENSATION: 65%

Learn More:

National Council for Teacher Quality State Teacher Policy Database

Score:

50%

Grade:

F

Rank:

#50

There is no charter law in this state.

Fast Facts:
Charter Law Analysis:
Learn More:
Fast Facts:

Law enacted: 2016

Number of programs: 1

Statewide Participation: 720

Types of programs: Tax Credit Scholarship

Choice Laws & Analysis:

Tax-Credit Scholarship
Partners in Education Tax Credit Program

Launched in 2016, the Partners in Education Tax Credit Program provides tax credits to insurance companies who donate to nonprofit scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs), which then provide private school scholarships to students who meet income and grade requirements. Students are eligible if their family income does not exceed 150 percent of the federal free and reduced-price lunch (FRL) program ($77,006 for a family of four in 2022-23). The program has an average scholarship size of around $1729 and a scholarship cap of 82.5% of state per-pupil funding, or about $5,000 in 2020-21. In June of 2022, South Dakota Senate Bill was passed by a Senate vote of 27-5 in favor of expanding the Partners in EducationTax Credit Program. Signed by Governor Noem, SB 71 will increase the tax credit scholarship cap from $2 million to $3.5 million. Additionally it would allow children in foster care to participate in the program.

Learn More:

EdChoice Analysis on South Dakota

Federation for Children Choice Program Information

2019 ALEC Report Card on American Education

Score:

66%

Grade:

D

Rank:

#43

Lacking rigorous elementary and secondary teacher preparation programs; tenure decisions not tied to teacher effectiveness and student growth

TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT: 60%
General Teacher Preparation 58%
Elementary Teacher Preparation 60%
Secondary Teacher Preparation 55%
Special Education Teacher Preparation 55%
Alternate Routes 70%  

STAFFING AND SUPPORT: 71%
Hiring 80%
Retaining Effective Teachers 61%

TEACHER EVALUATION: 66%

TEACHER COMPENSATION: 65%

Learn More:

National Council for Teacher Quality State Teacher Policy Database

Digital Learning:

Score:

68%

Grade:

D

Rank:

#42

South Dakota’s Tools for Teachers website launched in the 2020-2021 school year, providing educators access to high-quality digital tools and resources and professional development. 

South Dakota Virtual School is open for all middle and high school residents in the state to enroll for courses through their home district. Course offerings include credit recovery, career and technical education, world languages, and dual credit.  

South Dakota’s Sioux Falls School District is a member of the Digital Promise League of Innovative Schools, a network of school leaders in 114 districts in 34 states that aim to enhance and scale digital learning opportunities for students across the nation. Sioux Falls provides more than 24,000 students digital learning opportunities. It was also one of the first to reopen schools after Covid. 

Bandwidth: “100% of students in South Dakota can access the Internet at speeds of 100 kbps per student, and many students are connected at higher speeds.”

Personalized Learning:

While there is no statewide effort, many districts are doing exciting things for personalized learning. The Harrisburg School District has implemented competency-based, personalized learning in multiple schools and continues to expand. The school district’s transformation to personalized learning has made them a role model for districts around the country; they’ve had over 2,000 people across 10 states visit and learn about their implementation. Additionally schools in McCook Central School District are making efforts to transition to more personalized learning.

More information can be found on page 4 here.

Learn More:

Tools for Teachers

South Dakota Virtual School

League of Innovative Schools

March 13, Gov. Noem recommended schools close temporarily due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and April 6 recommended they remain closed and online learning continue for the duration of the school year South Dakota did not work to ensure students could continue learning and schools could continue teaching effectively in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis. Districts were encouraged to “continue assisting their communities” with meals, provide learning online for those with internet access or in paper packets, and there were some resources and information on their website.

The state has published detailed reopening guidelines and information for the 2020-21 school year online.

The state department of education advises schools have a plan for all remote learning in case schools must close again, but recommendations are for at least some in-person instruction. Districts have flexibility to decide how and when to begin in-person instruction, with input from local health officials.

Fast Facts

4th Grade Math Proficiency:

41%

8th Grade Math Proficiency:

32%

12th Grade Math Proficiency:

24% (nat'l average)

4th Grade Reading Proficiency:

32%

8th Grade Reading Proficiency:

31%

12th Grade Reading Proficiency:

37% (nat'l average)

Graduation Rate:

84%

Average SAT Score:

1219/1600

Average ACT Score:

21.5/36

Public School Enrollment:

141,307

Percent Enrolled in Charter Schools:

0%

Average Student Funding:

$10,208.00
Digital Learning:

Score:

68%

Grade:

D

Rank:

#42

South Dakota’s Tools for Teachers website launched in the 2020-2021 school year, providing educators access to high-quality digital tools and resources and professional development. 

South Dakota Virtual School is open for all middle and high school residents in the state to enroll for courses through their home district. Course offerings include credit recovery, career and technical education, world languages, and dual credit.  

South Dakota’s Sioux Falls School District is a member of the Digital Promise League of Innovative Schools, a network of school leaders in 114 districts in 34 states that aim to enhance and scale digital learning opportunities for students across the nation. Sioux Falls provides more than 24,000 students digital learning opportunities. It was also one of the first to reopen schools after Covid. 

Bandwidth: “100% of students in South Dakota can access the Internet at speeds of 100 kbps per student, and many students are connected at higher speeds.”

Personalized Learning:

While there is no statewide effort, many districts are doing exciting things for personalized learning. The Harrisburg School District has implemented competency-based, personalized learning in multiple schools and continues to expand. The school district’s transformation to personalized learning has made them a role model for districts around the country; they’ve had over 2,000 people across 10 states visit and learn about their implementation. Additionally schools in McCook Central School District are making efforts to transition to more personalized learning.

More information can be found on page 4 here.

Learn More:

Tools for Teachers

South Dakota Virtual School

League of Innovative Schools

March 13, Gov. Noem recommended schools close temporarily due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and April 6 recommended they remain closed and online learning continue for the duration of the school year South Dakota did not work to ensure students could continue learning and schools could continue teaching effectively in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis. Districts were encouraged to “continue assisting their communities” with meals, provide learning online for those with internet access or in paper packets, and there were some resources and information on their website.

The state has published detailed reopening guidelines and information for the 2020-21 school year online.

The state department of education advises schools have a plan for all remote learning in case schools must close again, but recommendations are for at least some in-person instruction. Districts have flexibility to decide how and when to begin in-person instruction, with input from local health officials.

4th Grade Math Proficiency:

41%

8th Grade Math Proficiency:

32%

12th Grade Math Proficiency:

24% (nat’l average)

4th Grade Reading Proficiency:

32%

8th Grade Reading Proficiency:

31%

12th Grade Reading Proficiency:

37% (nat’l average)

Graduation Rate:

84%

Average SAT Score:

1219/1600

Average ACT Score:

21.5/36

Public School Enrollment:

141,307

Percent Enrolled in Charter Schools:

0%

Average Student Funding:

$10,208.00
Your governor:

Kristi Noem (R)

First term began in 2019 (two-term limit)

Governor Kristi Noem took office in 2018 and has modestly expanded the scholarship tax program twice since then. She vowed to “protect the rights of parents to choose the educational path that’s best for their child, whether it’s homeschooling, public schooling or a private education.”. However, as the state’s grade demonstrates, she still has a long way to go.

State Legislature:

The House and Senate have not been bold challengers of the status quo despite a supportive governor. There have been two expansions in 2019 and 2021 of the state’s only choice program — a small scholarship tax credit bill that incentivizes contributions to the state’s scholarship program. In 2020, a Native American charter school bill got a couple of hearings in the Senate and support from Gov. Noem, but stalled. It will take bold leadership to bring expanded educational opportunities to all families.

South Dakota has a Blaine Amendment, and the South Dakota Supreme Court has interpreted it restrictively. “That Court has explicitly rejected the distinction between aiding students and aiding the schools they choose to attend.” (Institute for Justice)

Learn More:

Institute for Justice: South Dakota School Choice and State Constitution

School report cards are immediately apparent on the homepage of South Dakota’s DOE website. Report cards give an overall district/school score, and data covers academics and school quality, giving parents a complete picture of their school’s strength and challenges that need to be addressed. 

School Board Elections are not held during the General Election Cycle, which usually means lower voter turnout.

Your governor:

Kristi Noem (R)

First term began in 2019 (two-term limit)

Governor Kristi Noem took office in 2018 and has modestly expanded the scholarship tax program twice since then. She vowed to “protect the rights of parents to choose the educational path that’s best for their child, whether it’s homeschooling, public schooling or a private education.”. However, as the state’s grade demonstrates, she still has a long way to go.

State Legislature:

The House and Senate have not been bold challengers of the status quo despite a supportive governor. There have been two expansions in 2019 and 2021 of the state’s only choice program — a small scholarship tax credit bill that incentivizes contributions to the state’s scholarship program. In 2020, a Native American charter school bill got a couple of hearings in the Senate and support from Gov. Noem, but stalled. It will take bold leadership to bring expanded educational opportunities to all families.

South Dakota has a Blaine Amendment, and the South Dakota Supreme Court has interpreted it restrictively. “That Court has explicitly rejected the distinction between aiding students and aiding the schools they choose to attend.” (Institute for Justice)

Learn More:

Institute for Justice: South Dakota School Choice and State Constitution

School report cards are immediately apparent on the homepage of South Dakota’s DOE website. Report cards give an overall district/school score, and data covers academics and school quality, giving parents a complete picture of their school’s strength and challenges that need to be addressed. 

School Board Elections are not held during the General Election Cycle, which usually means lower voter turnout.

Select Your State

Charter Schools

Charter schools are public schools, open by choice, free from most rules and regulations that hamper traditional public schools and held accountable for results.

Since 1991, when charter schools were first established in Minnesota, the principle has remained the same — increased operational autonomy in exchange for increased accountability for outcomes. This freedom to innovate allows academically excellent charter schools to flourish.

As of 2020, there were more than 7,300 charter schools across the country with more than 3.3 million students, with demand higher everywhere they are located. Forty-six states, including Washington, D.C. have charter school laws. West Virginia enacted the most recent law in 2019. All charter laws are not created equal, however, and in fact, many are so flawed that they allow for only minimal opportunity for parents. PPI draws from CER’s newest Charter School Law Rankings and Scorecard, produced in the summer of 2020. For the US as a whole, the glass is more empty than full when it comes to meaningful charter choices.

Since 1996, CER has researched, analyzed, and ranked charter school laws, taking the content of each law into consideration as well as how it impacts charter schools on the ground. This Parent Power Index looks at four main areas of each state’s law:

If it allows for multiple authorizers, and if applicants have the ability to appeal a denial; whether it allows for growth, particularly with no caps on number of schools or enrollment; if schools and teachers have freedom to innovate; and if there is equitable funding of schools, including for facilities and transportation.

Charter schools are the most analyzed public school reform in decades. Since 1996, CER has studied their impact, their environment, and their practice and made recommendations for how to improve each law. The Parent Power Index charter score is based on whether the law allows for freedom and flexibility that can ensure parents, teachers and the general public are able to build vibrant, successful charter schools without undue interference from flawed state regulators, with equitable funding and parents in the driver’s seat. More about how this works can be found in CER publications, most notably Charting a New Course and The Future of School.

In addition, past rankings document how states have grown or confined charter schools and what best practices should be followed. Finally CER has provided a model charter school law for policymakers that is the standard bearer for advocates who believe that parents, not systems, should drive education.

Choice Programs

Educational choice is best defined as the availability of a multitude of public programs that provide parents with the ability to include private and religious entities – schools, tutoring, and other organizations – in their choices. Those programs are enacted at the state level, allowing in a wide variety of ways that the funds allocated for education in a state either follow the student to the institution the parent chooses or, as in the case of tax credits, public funds are redistributed to support the choices parents make, rather than automatically going to government based school districts.

These options are often referred to as scholarship programs, vouchers, tax credits, education accounts and more.

The existence of a higher degree of educational choice in a community or state, particularly for lower income students, has been found to be a significant factor in improving education and ensuring all students have access to the best school that meets their individual needs. Where once private options were only available to the more advantaged, most choice programs today ensure that those without resources have the power to shape their student’s education and invest in their future.

PPI 2020 assesses the extent to which every state gives families better and more abundant educational options through various mechanisms. Choice programs are analyzed and evaluated on their potential to reach all children across a state and for the degree to which they can actually support the full choice of parents, as opposed to only providing a modest amount of financial support. Programs where a significant population of parents can obtain scholarships or vouchers to send their children to the school of their choice score higher than those that have limitations based on geography, income, and student eligibility constraints.

To determine scores, PPI relies on well-established organizations which study, advance and support such programs. The scores were developed with this lens, and on information and ratings from EdChoice’s School Choice in America Dashboard, American Legislative Exchange Council’s Report Card on American Education: 23rd Edition, and American Federation for Children’s School Choice Interactive Map.

Teacher Quality

Teacher Quality is an equally important facet of ensuring greater educational opportunity. There is a direct correlation between quality teachers and student achievement, and teachers have the power to foster highly effective learning environments and leave a lasting impact on the future of their students. State teacher policies are critical in ensuring that students have the opportunity to receive the best education possible. Without schools full of well-prepared teachers who are held accountable either directly to the parent or to taxpayers for student achievement, opportunity can be meaningless. Most states vary widely in the criteria used to train, hire, retain, evaluate, reward and advance teachers, and local rules also influence that criteria greatly, as do teachers unions. PPI looked again to the expert analysis of the National Council of Teacher Quality, and from several aspects of their work PPI extrapolated final teacher quality scores. (NCTQ does not grade each state.)

Relying solely on the rich data collected from the National Council on Teacher Quality, states are measured by across a wide range of policy categories: Training and Recruitment, Staffing and Support, Evaluation, and Compensation. The score is by no means comprehensive about teacher quality across every community and state, but it is based on the extent to which states rigorously expect, manage and measure different aspects of teacher training, hiring, evaluation and compensation. States score higher when they have strong, data-driven, performance-based accountability systems that ensure teachers are rewarded, retained, and advanced based on their effectiveness. Likewise, states that establish rigorous teacher preparation programs and offer alternative licensing programs earn higher scores.

For more information about the Teacher Quality landscape, please see the National Council on Teacher Quality’s detailed analysis in their State Teacher Policy Database.

Innovation

States are measured on their increasing commitment to and practice of innovative approaches to education that include digital learning models and pathways, full or in part, encouraging personalized learning through focus on competency and mastery – even on a pilot level – or by allowing flexibility in schools and school districts that want to do it. Personalized learning models value mastery of material over traditional subject matter time tests, and competency over end of course grades. While these practices are best decided locally, closest to the student, states can motivate, incentivize, fund, discourage or encourage.

To determine scores, the PPI drew heavily from ExcelinEd’s 2019 State Progress Toward Next Generation Learning, Aurora Institute’s 2020 Future-Focused State Policy Actions to Transform K-12 Education, and KnowledgeWorks’ 2019 State Policy Framework for Personalized Learning.

COVID-19 Response

When COVID-19 reached our shores in early 2020, states were forced to close their schools for in-person instruction. Whether and how to continue teaching and set expectations for continued learning outside of the classroom was a big debate. Many states and schools quickly pivoted to delivering education remotely, either through technology enabled tools or with low-tech paper packets and phone calls, or a combination of both. The response from schools and school districts varied widely, with some being willing to adapt and some actually discouraging both teaching and learning. CER tracked those responses (and continues to do so, given the fluidity of the situation). States that were encouraging, set expectations, and demanded that schools figure out whatever they could to keep moving students forward, tended to have more schools and districts that responded well and worked to deliver education regardless of challenges. Many states that had digital or virtual learning programs in place were able to make a more seamless shift. Innovative leaders at local and state levels rose to the occasion. But many states and localities dragged their feet and, in some cases, outright discouraged schooling to keep going, including forbidding teachers in some areas to be required to do any face to face teaching via technology.

States were evaluated based on reviewing their official notices and declarations, and by reviewing a broad array of surveys and data many groups have been maintaining. This score also factors in states’ prior commitments to expanding broadband and internet access and how they worked to provide devices to keep students learning and engaged.

What was, and is, a challenging and unprecedented time for schools, teachers, and parents was also an opportunity to look at states’ and schools’ abilities to adapt, be flexible, and innovate.

For more on Education Innovation, check out the CER ACTION Series:

  • Virtual Events & Videos
  • Key Data
  • Resources
  • Publications

Leadership

Improving education opportunity and innovation requires leaders who boldly and courageously push forward to create or expand successful programs that allow a wide variety of educational choice and individualized programs to thrive. Governors and state legislators are the most important entities in each state to pave the way, or deter, expanded parent power. Some leaders pay lip service to issues, while others wake up with a fire in their belly to ensure that they are doing what they can every day to push through conventional wisdom and demand 21st century schooling opportunities for all students.

Whether or not your governor is the bold, fire-in-the-belly kind, or a passive applauder of others’ efforts, is evaluated to help you push or prod or applaud. PPI looks at their positions AND actions on charter schools, choice programs, innovation, and commitment to increasing educational opportunities for all students at every level and summarizes it for you here. You have the power to elect leaders who prioritize parents and students!

Constitutional Issues

The ability for states to enact educational change can be significantly limited depending on certain provisions in state constitutions.

The most common clause that limits educational opportunity in most states are “Blaine Amendments” – named after 19th century Congressman James Blaine nearly 150 years ago. Historically, these provisions in 37 state constitutions were either interpreted to restrict educational choice programs that include private schools or have been a deterrent for many programs being considered, let alone enacted.

This issue received a great deal of press leading up to and following the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 30, 2020 decision in the case of Espinoza vs Montana Department of Revenue, a case that dealt with Montana’s Blaine Amendment. That landmark decision found that the U.S. Constitution “forbids states from excluding religious schools as options for families participating in educational choice programs, including through Blaine Amendments.”

As a result, most states have a new path to enact programs that provide options for families, including religious schools. Their individual versions of Blaine Amendments can either be nullified with attorney generals’ opinions, with legislation or with both. Additional restrictions on expanded opportunity are often dedicated by what is called a Compelled Support Clause where dated constitutional language restricts public funding to government entities.

We look at each state’s particular constitutional issues, utilizing a number of sources, CER attorney analysis and the Institute for Justice’s research as our guide. Additional information about Espinoza and Blaine Amendments can be found here.

In addition, if states have other constitutional barriers to more opportunity, they are evaluated in this area.

Transparency

Transparency is a key element of providing great opportunities for students. Every parent needs and deserves full transparency of school-level data to allow them to make informed decisions and drive changes in how their students are educated. School report cards empower parents in their decision making by giving them access to meaningful and quality education data about a particular school or district. Report cards often provide information on student performance, student growth, attendance, graduation rates, demographics, teacher quality, school environment, assessments, and more. States that have greater transparency and accountability provide the public with data that is current, readily available, and easy to understand.

States are measured based on the transparency and accessibility of data for the average person looking to learn about their child’s school. States have more gas in the tank when school report cards are easily accessible from their state DOE homepage; report cards are comprehensive, user-friendly, and easy to understand; and information about educational options are readily available. Additionally, states score higher when they hold School Board Elections during the General Election cycle, as opposed to off-times of the year when turnout is low, because this tends to afford parents more power in their decision-making.