A new report shows South Dakota is lagging behind in a nationwide education movement still building momentum.
According to the 2025 EdChoice Friedman Index—a new measuring system released in April by the titular education reform organization, which is designed to measure how much educational choice families in a particular state actually have—South Dakota only has an index score of 1 in a range from 0 to 100.
To measure a Friedman Index score, EdChoice uses three criteria. If a state meets all three criteria, it earns a score of 100 on the index. The first, “All Students,” measures whether “100% of the students in the state are eligible to participate in a choice program, with funding available for all who wish to participate (universal funded eligibility).”
The second criteria, “All Options,” measures whether “all choice students are able to participate in an education savings account-style program (ESA), which means families have the opportunity to use the taxpayer funds placed in their child’s account to offset tuition payments at private schools and to purchase educational goods and services outside of schools, (e.g. tutoring, textbooks, test fees, special needs therapies, etc).”
The third criteria, “All Dollars,” measures whether “average awards per choice student are equal to the average state and local revenue per public school student, which means that choice students receive the same amount of funding as public school students (sans federal funding), on average.”
The formula for calculating the Friedman Index is relatively straightforward. The percentage of students eligible for a choice program (with funding) is multiplied by the fraction of average dollar award per choice student divided by state and local revenues per public school student. This number is then multiplied by 100. If a state does not have an ESA or similar program permitting families to purchase education services “outside of school walls,” that state receives a five-point deduction from the formula.
The report provides examples to illustrate how the formula works. In the first example, the fictional state of Wakanda has two ESA programs in which a combined 50 percent of the state’s students are eligible for either program. Additionally, “the average ESA award among choice students across the programs is $8,000, and the public schools in Wakanda receive an average of $16,000 in state and local funding.” Applying those numbers to the formula, 50 percent is multiplied by the fraction of $8,000 divided by $16,000 and then multiplied by 100. So, 50 percent (.5) times 50 percent (.5) equals .25, which is then multiplied by 100 to yield a final score of 25.
To the Mount Rushmore State’s credit, it does provide some state children a tax-credit scholarship program. The Partners in Education Tax Credit Program, enacted in 2016, is open to low-income children, and there were 1,671 students making use of the program in the 2023–24 school year. However, although 48 percent of South Dakota children are theoretically eligible for the program, because of budget constraints only 2 percent can make use of the program in reality. Further, the program only provides families with a miserly 18 percent of the funding that would have gone to their child in one of the state’s public schools. Hence, South Dakota’s score of 1 on the Friedman Index.
To significantly improve the Mount Rushmore State’s index score and catapult it into the vanguard of the education choice movement, South Dakota lawmakers should consider turning the Partners in Education tax Credit Program into a universal education savings account (ESA) program open to all South Dakota children. Further, they should consider funding that program at a level that ensures each South Dakota child can make use of it, while ensuring each account award matches the per-pupil expenditure that would have gone to a public school student.
Copious empirical research on school choice programs like ESAs makes clear these programs offer families improved access to high-quality schools that meet their children’s unique needs and circumstances. Specifically, these programs improve academic performance and attainment while delivering quality education at lower cost than traditional public schools.
Additionally, education choice benefits public school students and taxpayers by increasing competition, decreasing segregation, and improving civic values and practices. Research also shows students at private schools are less likely than their public school peers to experience problems such as alcohol abuse, bullying, drug use, fighting, gang activity, racial tension, theft, vandalism, and weapon-based threats. There is also a strong causal link suggesting private school choice programs improve the mental health of participating students.
Education choice programs like ESAs are not only good policy—they are also broadly popular. EdChoice’s Public Opinion Tracker, last updated on August 11, shows 67 percent of all South Dakota adults and 71 percent of South Dakota parents with school-aged children are in favor of ESA programs.
Further, a universal ESA program is sorely needed in the Mount Rushmore State because the state’s public schools are habitually failing South Dakota’s children. In 2024, only 42 percent of South Dakota’s public school fourth-graders and 33 percent of eighth-graders tested “proficient” to grade-level proficiency in mathematics on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) examination, colloquially known as the “Nation’s Report Card.” Just 28 percent of fourth-graders and 29 percent of eighth-graders tested “proficient” in reading. Essentially, and embarrassingly, the state’s public schools are failing to educate roughly seven out of 10 South Dakota children to grade-level proficiency in reading and math by the time they are about to enter high school.
The goal of public education in South Dakota today and in the years to come should be to allow all parents to choose which schools their children attend, require every school to compete for every student who walks through its doors, and make sure every child has the opportunity to attend a quality school that best fits their unique needs and circumstances.
Simply put, states with robust and expansive school choice programs will be more attractive to families who have the ability to migrate to the state of their choosing. How many families who are considering a move to will decide against moving to South Dakota because it doesn’t offer their children the opportunity to attend the school that best suits their educational needs? Mount Rushmore State legislators should recognize this and turn its tax-credit scholarship program into a universal and fully-funded ESA, allowing all current and future South Dakotans as many options as possible to get their children the education they need and deserve.
Heartland Impact can send an expert to your state to testify or brief your caucus; host an event in your state; or send you further information on a topic. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if we can be of assistance! If you have any questions or comments, contact Cameron Sholty, at csholty@heartlandimpact.org or 312/377- 4000.
