Amend the school funding formula to provide for the use of an average fall enrollment when determining local need.
Summary
SB 157 amends South Dakota’s school funding formula to change how a district’s “local need” is calculated. The bill adds a new definition of “average fall enrollment” as the average of the two immediately preceding school years’ fall enrollments, and it directs that local need be based on the greater of average fall enrollment or current-year fall enrollment. In practical terms, this would smooth year-to-year swings in enrollment when determining state aid, rather than relying solely on a single current-year count.
The bill also makes conforming and related changes within the education funding statutes that rely on fall enrollment or related enrollment-based calculations. Those include provisions for target teacher ratios, general fund cash balance limits, and other formula components that use enrollment as a key input. The bill preserves existing special treatment for certain student categories, such as nonresident students in state custody, students in residential treatment facilities, and alternative instruction participants, while keeping the broader structure of the school finance formula intact.
Impact
SB 157 would amend § 13-13-10.1 and related school finance definitions to incorporate a two-year average enrollment measure into the calculation of local need for state aid to education. This could affect the amount of state funding districts receive, especially districts with declining or volatile enrollment, by reducing sharp funding changes from one year to the next. It would also influence other formula-driven calculations that depend on fall enrollment, including teacher ratio factors and general fund cash balance thresholds, thereby affecting school district budgeting and state aid administration.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill had mixed support and some resistance, as it was deferred to the 41st legislative day by a 4-3 vote. That outcome indicates the proposal was not broadly settled in committee at the time of the vote. No committee transcript is available here, so the record shows procedural hesitation rather than a clear articulated consensus for or against the bill.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the shift from a single-year enrollment count to an average of two years when determining local need. Supporters would generally view this as a way to stabilize funding and avoid abrupt losses for districts experiencing enrollment declines, while opponents may worry it could delay funding adjustments, reduce responsiveness to current enrollment changes, or redistribute aid away from districts with growing student populations. Because the bill affects the state aid formula, school districts, education administrators, and lawmakers concerned with equity and fiscal predictability are the most likely stakeholders.