The House Education Committee is delaying a vote on a school choice finance bill for one week so it can get a definitive answer on how much the proposal would cost the state.

House Bill 1009, which would create South Dakota educational empowerment accounts, was brought by five members of the 15-person committee: Republican Reps. Heather Baxter, Phil Jensen, Dylan Jordan, Logan Manhart and Kathy Rice.

Jordan, who opened his testimony on the bill by noting he’s not a teacher, was the prime sponsor and couldn’t answer questions from committee members about what exactly his bill would cost the state, and what it could cost the South Dakota Department of Education in staffing and audits.

He noted the DOE hasn’t supported the bill.

More: South Dakota Education Secretary worked on ESA bill opposed by Public Schools Coalition

What’s in HB 1009?

HB 1009 as introduced would make educational empowerment accounts with funds that could be spent on tuition fees; fees for sports programs and fine arts programs; textbooks, curricula or other instructional materials and supplies; educational therapies; registration fees for nationally standardized achievement tests, advanced placement exams or other tests or exams related to postsecondary admission; transportation services between a student’s home and the private school, institution of higher education or location or program the student is enrolled in; or, technological devices, instruments and equipment necessary for educational pursuits.

To open an account, parents of students who will attend private school must file a request with the DOE that acknowledges their student can’t switch back into public school or into alternative instruction that school year.

Each account would give parents the per student equivalent amount, which is currently $7,405.19, in the form of a debit card.

More than 15,000 students are currently enrolled in the state’s private schools. If all 15,185 private school students were given $7,405.19, that would total more than $112 million for the new program.

When Rice asked if Jordan would support an amendment reducing the funding amount, Jordan said he wouldn’t, because “we’d be saying individual children are worth less than others, and I thought we were all created equal.”

More: Where the ‘groundswell’ of support for South Dakota education savings accounts is coming from

The DOE would be responsible for creating a handbook for participants, publishing forms for withdrawing an alternative instruction notification, conducting random audits of the accounts and taking the request forms for the account.

Meanwhile, a similar bill, House Bill 1020, would create education savings accounts and appropriate about $4 million to cover $3,000 in ESAs for students in the state’s private schools or alternative instruction. Money could only be spent on tuition and fees to qualifying schools, curriculum and associated instructional materials or supplies, “educationally related technological devices and associated hardware and services,” and fees for any standardized college entrance exam approved by the DOE.

Gov. Kristi Noem proposed that bill in her budget address and has support from DOE Secretary Joe Graves. It also differs from HB 1009 in that it sets up a tiered system of eligibility based on household income.

Proponents support school choice, question expense

Besides Jordan, other proponents of HB 1009 who spoke Wednesday included lobbyists from Young Americans for Liberty, South Dakota Parents Involved in Education, Family Voice Action and Americans for Prosperity and six parents from either Colton, Spearfish, Salem or Rapid City who spoke about the success they or their children have had in private school or homeschool.

Jordan began proponent testimony by thanking President Donald Trump for “calling for school choice nationally.” He said COVID-19 opened people’s eyes on the modern education system and showed “one-size-fits-all education policy” doesn’t work for everyone. Jordan added that “leftist, LGBTQIA2S+ communities and the ‘woke agenda’” have made its way into the public school system.

More: Sioux Falls school board warns of ‘detrimental impact’ vouchers have on public education

The proponents jointly spoke about the benefits of school choice and empowering parents to make that choice, how homeschooling can get expensive, and how the program could bring a “marketplace of ideas” to education in a new way.

However, lobbyists from Parents Involved in Education and Americans for Prosperity, along with a homeschooling father from Salem, cautioned about the expense of the bill and suggested reducing vouchers to the $3,000 Noem proposed. They questioned whether it would pass through the Capitol chambers and committees at such a large expense.

Opponents prefer financial support go to public education, not private

Opponents of HB 1009 who spoke Wednesday included lobbyists with Disability Rights South Dakota, Associated School Boards of South Dakota, School Administrators of South Dakota, South Dakota Education Association, the Sioux Falls and Rapid City School Districts, Large School Group, Bureau of Finance and Management, South Dakota United School Association and South Dakota Retailers Association.

They largely argued that the bill divests and diverts significant taxpayer dollars from public education into private schools that don’t follow the same accountability and equity rules that public schools follow. They said this year schools will have a much more lean budget, so it would be “irresponsible” to stand up a new program at such a time.

More: What to know about education savings accounts, school choice ahead of legislative session

A lobbyist from Bureau of Finance and Management said Noem supports school choice, but believes the bill could cost South Dakota $157 million. and therefore asked the committee to oppose the bill.

Some of the education lobbyists also said the bill is “clunky” and questioned what unforeseen expenses families may use the debit cards to pay for with little accountability or oversight.

Ultimately, the vote to delay a vote on the bill for one week to Jan. 29 until a fiscal note is prepared by the Legislative Research Council passed with nine in favor, five dissenting and one member excused.