Bills have surfaced in nearly 30 states to crack down on public-school curriculum, with systemic racism as the focal point. Some bans have been adopted, and South Dakota has its own version in the works even as educators voice concerns.

Today, a Senate committee will hear a GOP-led bill to prevent teachers from promoting politically divisive concepts. One example is individuals are inherently responsible for past actions committed by other members of the same race.

Loren Paul, president of the South Dakota Education Association, called the measure troubling in part because the provisions are subjective and lack clarity.

"I believe it will cause a chilling effect on what our educators actually teach in their classroom and take away some of the confidence that an educator may have to teach certain things," Paul asserted.

He contended the state's Code of Ethics already offers a process for dealing with such matters, and the new bill would only add confusion. The association also worried it would harm a student's ability to absorb certain subject matters. Bill supporters say they want to protect students from political indoctrination.

The bill, which recently cleared the House, does not mention Critical Race Theory (CRT), the higher-education concept at the center of recent debate.

Rep. Sue Peterson, R-Sioux Falls, acknowledged CRT is not taught in public schools and argued the bill would not prevent difficult lessons about racism.

"This bill is about balance," Peterson emphasized. "It's about preventing the promotion of racist and political ideas to a captive audience of young students in our public schools."

Paul countered the captive audience does not need the Legislature interfering via the bill.

"That will deny students the opportunity to learn and to ask questions and not just accept everything they hear as fact," Paul stressed.

He also worried it would add to the list of challenges in trying to recruit and retain teachers.

The proposal has seen amendments to win over more lawmaker support. A similar bill also originated in the House as Gov. Kristi Noem pushes for bans to be sent to her desk.

Alabama is one of six states still using The Foundation Program to calculate aid to schools, which uses a formula focused on the number of students to determine how much money a school gets.

Jason Meadows, director of advocacy and partnerships for the A+ Education Partnership, called it an outdated system which does not meet the needs of all students.

"We just want to make sure that districts have the funds based upon the unique needs," Meadows explained. "Whether that's a student with disabilities, whether that's our EOL population, where students who English is their second language, along with other subgroups of students. "

He pointed out proper funding for students provides benefits long after graduation. Meadows cites research showing increasing funding by $1,000 per student leads to higher life attainment and earning potential. He emphasized investing in education benefits the state's workforce and community development.

Right now, only 2% of state education funding is dedicated to supporting students in poverty, students with special education needs and English learners, which equates to just $140 per student per year.

As the 2025 legislative session approaches, Meadows noted the Every Child Alabama coalition, made up of nearly 30 organizations, is advocating for reforms to modernize the funding formula. Faith In Action Alabama is among the groups supporting the effort.

"They're working from the faith based community and so these are boots on the ground who work and serve students and families every day," Meadows pointed out. "A lot of these churches have tutoring programs, after school programs, summer programs, and so they understand the unique needs of the students."

Meadows added the coalition wants the new formula to address key gaps by providing more funding for low-income students, English learners and those receiving special education services. They are also calling for targeted support for rural districts and schools with high concentrations of low-income families.


get more stories like this via email

Ohioans are paying close attention to the fast-tracking of Senate Bill 295 through the Statehouse during the lame-duck session.

The proposed legislation could have significant consequences for schools with low ratings on state report cards. Critics argued the bill's heavy reliance on standardized test scores would unfairly penalize districts.

Scott DiMauro, president of the Ohio Education Association, voiced his concerns in testimony to the Senate Education Committee.

"Instead of offering significant support, Senate Bill 295 proposes significant punishments that will most likely destabilize schools where many great things are happening," DiMauro contended. "Even if those successes are not revealed on data printouts of standardized test scores."

Supporters of the bill argued drastic measures are needed for struggling schools but opponents countered standardized tests often reflect poverty, not performance. They point to community-based solutions, like Ohio's 21st Century Community Learning Centers, as effective alternatives.

The bill would also override collective bargaining agreements, potentially forcing schools to replace more than half of their teaching staff. Educators worry the approach could worsen the statewide teacher shortage while failing to address root causes of underperformance.

Lonnie Dusch, chemistry teacher at Princeton High School and the local union president, criticized the reliance on standardized tests as a measure of success.

"The schools can be doing spectacularly well and just struggling on those standardized tests," Dusch pointed out. "Because those are high-stakes tests that we've seen, again and again, don't ever actually measure the growth that our students are seeing."

The fate of the bill remains uncertain but its implications are drawing debate over how Ohio addresses challenges in education. Many advocates are calling for long-term investments in wraparound services and community partnerships, rather than punitive measures, as a pathway to sustainable improvement in schools across the state.

North Dakota students will soon be on holiday break. When they return, state lawmakers are expected to debate giving families financial support related to school choice.

The controversial idea might look different this time, but similar arguments remain.

School vouchers have been a thorny issue, with a number of conservative-led states pushing to set aside funding for families to enroll their kids in private schools.

Opponents say that needlessly takes away money from public schools. A voucher bill was vetoed in North Dakota in 2023, but school choice backers are crafting a different plan.

Sheila Peterson is a public-school physical education teacher at Wachter Middle School in Bismarck who is monitoring what's happening.

"Every kid has the fundamental right to a good education, that is so important," said Peterson. "So, if we're saying there's something that's missing and there's monies available, why aren't we funding our public education system to provide those pieces that are missing?"

Peterson, a member of the union ND United and the 2024 North Dakota Teacher of the Year, suggested beefing up mental health services, or focusing on reducing class sizes.

She said that might help renew or restore faith in public schools.

A lawmaker drafting a bill says it wouldn't be a voucher program, but instead an Education Savings Account, where parents would get money to pursue a variety of support services.

State Sen. Michelle Axtman - R-Bismarck - plans to introduce the ESA bill, and said such a marketplace is superior to vouchers, which she called an outdated approach to improving school choice.

Axtman said her measure would cover all students, including those from public systems, who might need extra support in rounding out the education they're getting.

"Whether that be a summer STEM camp," said Axtman, "or occupational therapy for a need, or dyslexia services, or just tutoring in math, or a language course that isn't offered in a rural community."

Axtman stressed that her plan wouldn't divert money from K-12 funding.

Aimee Copas - executive director of the North Dakota Council of Education Leaders - said she is leery of ESAs, but said they could be meaningful if lawmakers ensure fairness in distributing aid.

Plus, she said North Dakota already does a good job in tapping into the spirit of school choice.

"We probably have more school choice and opportunities," said Copas, "than almost any state in the nation. "

She pointed to the adoption of the Learning Continuum model, where public districts are given flexibility to offer more personalized forms of education.

She said apprenticeship programs are another good example.