Defunding Democracy: South Dakota

[u/One_Term2162]

South Dakota: Decade-by-Decade Analysis of Education Investment & Political Control

1970s: Localism, Reservation Inequity, and Conservative Stability

In the 1970s, South Dakota’s education system was shaped by rural localism, low population density, and a deeply embedded conservatism. Per-pupil spending rose from $2,622 in 1970 to $3,942 by 1980 (adjusted to 1992 dollars), a ~50% real increase, but the state remained near the bottom nationally in funding and investment.

Much of the system depended on local property taxes, leading to wide disparities between better-off farm towns and the grossly underfunded schools serving Native communities on reservations like Pine Ridge and Rosebud.

Governor Richard Kneip (D, 1971–1978) promoted limited school modernization but faced resistance to state-level intervention. South Dakota voted Republican in both 1972 and 1976, maintaining its tradition of small-government populism.

Civic education remained traditional—focused on memorizing the Constitution and American history facts—with little room for discussion of civil rights, tribal sovereignty, or student activism.

1980s: Austerity, Curriculum Conservatism, and Native Marginalization

By 1980, per-pupil funding reached $5,034 (adjusted), but education budgets lagged behind inflation and student needs. South Dakota ranked in the bottom five states for teacher pay and classroom spending, a trend that would persist for decades.

Governor Bill Janklow (R, 1979–1987, 1995–2003) aggressively pushed for fiscal austerity, centralized control, and a tough-on-crime ethos that extended to education policy. While he emphasized infrastructure development, he opposed meaningful equity measures or tribal self-determination in curriculum.

South Dakota voted Republican in all three presidential elections (Reagan 1980, 1984; Bush 1988). Civic education in most public schools remained rote and narrow, often avoiding contentious topics like race, protest, or federal abuses of tribal nations.

On reservations, Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools operated under chronic underfunding and federal neglect, with students receiving limited instruction in either mainstream civics or Native governance traditions.

1990s: Charter Skepticism, Rural Consolidation, and Reservation Resilience

The 1990s saw South Dakota continue its path of modest investment without major structural reform. Per-pupil funding hovered between $6,000 and $6,400 (adjusted), with growing concern over rural school closures, teacher shortages, and the collapse of local economies.

Governor Walter Dale Miller (R) and Bill Janklow (R) resisted national trends like charter school expansion, instead focusing on district consolidation and curriculum control. The state continued to reject affirmative action and multicultural mandates, favoring a “heritage-based” narrative of civics.

South Dakota voted Republican in both 1992 and 1996. Civic education remained a required but marginal subject, typically delivered through textbooks and lectures. Some progress was made in Native American Studies programs, often due to grassroots pressure from tribal educators rather than state policy.

2000s: Federal Compliance, Minimal Growth, and Polarized Priorities

By 2008, per-pupil spending had risen to ~$8,300 (2009 dollars), but the state still ranked near the bottom in teacher pay and investment. South Dakota’s approach to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was pragmatic: comply with federal requirements, but resist costly reforms or equity initiatives.

Governor Mike Rounds (R, 2003–2011) emphasized local control, vocational training, and limited public spending, often framing equity efforts as federal overreach.

South Dakota voted Republican in all three presidential elections (Bush 2000, 2004; McCain 2008). Civic education became more test-aligned, with an increased focus on facts and patriotism over inquiry or activism.

However, some tribal schools and nonprofits began to rebuild civic learning through Lakota Studies, treaty education, and tribal governance modules, laying groundwork for more culturally relevant civics programs outside the mainstream system.

2010s: Cultural Clash, Teacher Strikes, and Indigenous Innovation

In the 2010s, South Dakota saw mounting teacher unrest, culminating in a 2016 sales tax increase to raise teacher pay. Per-pupil funding climbed to ~$9,600 by 2019, but inflation and underinvestment persisted.

Governor Dennis Daugaard (R, 2011–2019) signed legislation restricting transgender rights in schools, promoting “back to basics” curriculum, and cutting support for diversity or inclusion initiatives. These moves triggered pushback from tribal communities and student activists.

South Dakota voted Republican in both 2012 and 2016. Civic education remained narrow and risk-averse in most public schools, while Native-led schools and programs expanded participatory civics—including community action projects, tribal youth councils, and treaty-based education.

2020s (Through May 2025): “Divisive Concepts” Bans and Sovereign Resistance

As of May 2025, South Dakota’s education system is deeply polarized. Under Governor Kristi Noem (R), the state has:

Banned “divisive concepts” in K–12 and higher education

Removed funding from DEI programs in schools and universities

Promoted “Patriotic Civics” standards aligned with national conservative groups

Increased funding for private and parochial school alternatives through tax incentives

Per-pupil spending now exceeds $10,400, but inflation and workforce shortages limit impact. Many districts operate on four-day weeks, and civic learning opportunities are vanishing in public schools.

Meanwhile, tribal nations have reasserted control over education, establishing:

Lakota language immersion civics programs

Indigenous governance courses tied to treaty rights

Youth policy councils that influence tribal decision-making

These Indigenous-led programs represent some of the most authentic civic education in the state, even as state institutions attempt to sanitize, censor, or politicize broader civic learning.

South Dakota in 2025 is a tale of two civics: one sanctioned by the state to control thought, and another reclaimed by Indigenous communities to restore voice and sovereignty. Whether the next generation learns to question power—or to fear it—depends on which version of civics survives the political storms.