Disappointed with local South Dakota Republican legislators' stance on dissolving their school districts, both Greater Hoyt and Greater Scott School Districts gear up for battle. At a special Greater Hoyt School Board meeting on April 3, Senator Ken Albers and Representative Joel Dykstra said there would be no legislative action allowing the two local school districts to continue operating as they have for the past 39 years. The two legislators told the nearly 70 people present that they had passed a “cross border open enrollment” law and urged the two districts to try that. However, the details of a cross border open enrollment agreement have not been worked out yet. On the other hand, Republican Governor Mike Rounds had told The Akron Hometowner he favored a legislative amendment to keep the two school districts operating as they have. As of now, Greater Hoyt and Greater Scott school districts are forced to consolidate with another school district. Their respective school boards have two years to create a plan of reorganization or South Dakota officials will do it for them. Greater Hoyt has three options: to consolidate with Elk Point-Jefferson; to consolidate with Alcester-Hudson; or split their district between those two school districts. Greater Scott only has one option since it is surrounded by the Alcester-Hudson School District. Students attending school districts in the middle of the state which contract educational services probably won't have to change schools but Greater Scott and Greater Hoyt students will, said Greg Heeren. At the April 12 Greater Scott School Board meeting, the whole meeting was a discussion between parents, concerned community members, Greater Scott School Board members, West Sioux Superintendent Paul Olson and Greater Hoyt School Board President Greg Heeren about what is the next step. When Olson asked the 15 people present and the Greater Scott board members, “Do you go quietly into the night and not fight?” -- the answer was unanimous: NO. Both Heeren and Greater Scott School Board President Cindy Waterman were adamant that their No. 1 intention was to find a way to continue the contractual agreements with their respective Iowa school districts. This is affecting not only students but whole families in the “West Hawarden” community, said Waterman, adding she has had phone calls about families splitting -- part of the family moving to Iowa so that they can have their children educated where they want. One parent said there are only two Greater Hoyt students in his son's class that will be forced to change schools. His son would be pretty much by himself at either Elk Point-Jefferson or Alcester-Hudson. The West Hawarden community is part of the Hawarden community, not Alcester, said Waterman. It was noted that West Hawarden is served by Hawarden's fire department, ambulance service and hospital. “It was brought up at our last meeting, it really tears

part the community,” said Olson. “How is that good for kids?” “'don't see where it's a betterment for our kids' education,” she said, adding she was not bashing Alcester in any way. “'just think we have a good education here with over 100 students in a district. I'd like to leave it that way.” “We fought for our (postal) address,” she added. “We'll fight for our school. Hawarden is our town.”

First Option: Legislation

Olson urged those present to talk with legislators who are willing to help the two school districts andsee if anything can be done legislatively. “I'd like to hear what (Democrat) Maggie Gillespie has to say,” said Heeren, explaining Gillespie had been unable to attend Greater Hoyt's special meeting. She might have a different perspective than Albers and Dykstra. Several school officials at this meeting stated they weren't sure they believed what they'd been told by any of the state officials or legislators. Heeren explained the SB 157 law seemed split along party lines with Democrats not favoring it while Republicans did. However Republicans have been more in favor of local control - yet they turned around and took that from us. Also, South Dakota legislators passing SB 157 on a Saturday during a snowstorm just doesn't set well with many. One reason the legislators gave was that “No Child Left Behind” doesn't allow school districts to test students who are in classes of less than 10 students. Olson reported that in the new reauthorization of the “No Child Left Behind” law, the 10-student rule was dropped. Another reason was school districts with less than 100 students are not providing as equal and efficient of an education as larger school districts. The legislators claimed they weren't aware of school districts along the border of the state. However, Olson said he didn't buy that. “I think they were very aware of these programs along the borders,” said Olson, “and looking at the past history, there have been a number of times they've tried to end this relationship across the state lines.” “They've been trying to do this for years,” agreed Greater Scott Board Member Robert Jager, adding the last time was four years ago. There was concern that the South Dakota legislature would continue to increase the minimum school size number, especially since SB 157 originally stated 200 students. If either Elk Point-Jefferson or Alcester-Hudson fell below that number, then where would our kids go, asked one woman in the audience. “Beresford,” was someone's response. The group's consensus was to continue the letter-writing campaigns to legislators and the governor. They were in favor of not only having community members but students and alumni participate. “(The attributes of the West Hawarden-Hawarden community) are all things we need to continually bring up whether we have to write each legislator every night or whatever,” said Waterman. “If you think of something, send it to them. It needs to come from all directions.” The hope was that with three or four generations of Greater Scott and Greater Hoyt families writing to legislators, they'd understand that all in this area want their education traditions to continue “ithink we should really look for a more permanent situation,” said Wilbur Hartman, who has grandchildren in both the Greater Hoyt and Greater Scott school districts. “They've been holding this over our heads for about 39 years now. ithink we should go with what would look like the most permanent situation to end it all.” “What guarantee would we have that after a year, they don't like it and quit it?” asked another man in the audience. “There are no guarantees,” said Olson, noting that at Greater Hoyt's special meeting the legislators told the crowd they have the power to create school districts and they have the power to dissolve school districts.

Both school board presidents said they get calls about students wanting to open enroll from Alcester- Hudson School District. Heeren said he does not get such calls from Elk Point-Jefferson families. Olson also gets such calls from South Dakota school districts farther north. However, open enrollment is not allowed into school districts which contract educational services and don't operate a school facility within their district's boundaries. Waterman pointed out that Greater Scott families have always had the option to open enroll to Alcester-Hudson. Currently, four students are doing so while 17 Greater Scott students attend West Sioux. Olson presented everyone with a copy of a state attorney general's interpretation of the differences between Iowa and South Dakota's open enrollment laws. One issue is the transportation of students to the district they open enroll into -- none were very optimistic that either Elk Point-Jefferson or Alcester-Hudson districts would be willing to transport students across the state line or pay for it. The group's consensus was that this would either have to be negotiated during consolidation or by having representation with enough votes on the consolidated school boards. It was noted that South Dakota school districts have already chosen whether to have an all “at-large” member board or to have board members from specific areas in their districts. Fair representation may be tough to achieve now. Probably the biggest sticking point is how students' state aid monies are distributed for open enrolling students, said Olson, explaining it has been proposed that the state will reconcile the monetary differences based on the number of students each state receives. He assumes the money will come through state aid to school districts and not from one district to another. “However, that has not been stated to us as fact.” “They promised they could reconcile that difference, then the whole thing with open enrollment would be seamless,” said Olson. “The devil's in the details. I haven't seen the details.” With a person at the Greater Hoyt meeting saying Elk Point-Jefferson has no room for Greater Hoyt's 61 students, do you think they are

going to welcome (Greater Hoyt students) with open arms when they are going to have to build

a new school because you are coming,” asked Olson. “If a whole bunch of Greater Scott kids want

to open enroll into Iowa, West Sioux's Board is going to agree, but is Alcester-Hudson going to

agree to it. That's a big hurdle.” “ithink neighboring school districts are going to want your kids

and the revenue that comes with them,” said Olson. “They aren't going to want them to slip away

across the border.” “isee a lot of hurdles in the road for this to be a smooth transition,” he said, adding he sees problems all along the border. “These are details that need to be worked out in this thing. Clear out the hurdles and let it happen.” “If open enrollment goes through, fine,” said Waterman, “but I'm still going for the first option (legislative amendment). I'm going for it and I'm fighting hard just like they did 40 years ago.” “Open enrollment was promised to a country school district 40 years ago when they were reorganizing,” said Waterman, “and it didn't happen. I'm not just going to believe words. I want to see some action.” “Buy real estate in Iowa,” was one man's solution.

The Greater Hoyt School Board is planning to meet with Gillespie about legislative options and with South Dakota Secretary of Education Rick Melmer about the open enrollment law. Heeren explained he would like to wait until July or August to hold a meeting with Melmer. This would give Melmer and Iowa Department of Education Director Judy Jeffrey time to work out the details of open enrollment. In addition, it would give local people plenty of notice about this meeting. “We're not really faced with any real serious time line at this stage of the game,” said Heeren, adding the next South Dakota and Iowa legislative sessions don't start until January 2008. “I'd just like to be able to involve as many people as would like to be involved in it. Give them the opportunity to be there.” “We're talking about what we want,” said Jager. “ithink we need to get the kids involved in this as well as the parents.” Heeren agreed, suggesting both Greater Hoyt and Greater Scott families, students and communities participate in this meeting. It was suggested to have both Jeffrey and Melmer present. The group discussed whether there was a need for a lawyer. “I'd like to wait until we meet with legislators and Melmer again,” said Heeren, noting Greater Hoyt has a lawyer but hasn't contacted him regarding this issue. “(Let's) see what we can get accomplished. If we don't feel that we're getting what we want out of (the first two options), then that will be the next step.” Olson suggested that it might be good for the two districts to join forces. It was also suggested to contact other South Dakota school districts affected by SB 157 “We'll let the public know when our next meeting is,” said Waterman. “Greater Hoyt and Greater Scott are going to try to work together and we're going to try to save expenses together as much as we can.” “It's our intent to work together,” said Waterman. “Our No. 1 intention is to continue the way we are.”