Bill would let North Dakota Department of Public Instruction review districts, with sanctions for education-law violations

The House Education Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 2104 on a proposal that would authorize the North Dakota superintendent of public instruction to review school districts for compliance with education‑related state law and, where noncompliance is found, to issue corrective actions and — if districts fail to comply — impose sanctions including withholding up to 2 percent of the district's state payments.

Senator Todd Beard, the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure "is meant to put a procedure in place" so the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) can investigate complaints submitted by a parent, a majority of a local school board, or a county superintendent. Beard described key procedures in the bill: DPI could request information from the district, issue a corrective action with a timeline for compliance within 90 days, send a written warning if the district does not comply, and then — after an additional 30 days — impose sanctions. A district could request a hearing within 10 days of a corrective action, the bill says.

The bill drew sharply divided testimony. Supporters — including representatives of parent groups and concerned residents from Williston — argued the state lacks an effective, accessible process to resolve alleged violations of education law and cited instances they said went unresolved at the local level. Mark Jorritsma of the North Dakota Family Alliance told the committee that teachers and districts were unaware of recent statutory changes in curriculum law and said, "no matter what we have in place now, it's not working." Several parents and community members described local incidents, including an instance they said involved a teacher who resigned after allegations and subsequent local handling they found unsatisfactory.

Opponents included the North Dakota School Boards Association and the North Dakota Council of Education Leaders. Amy DeCook, executive director of the School Boards Association, said the bill “fundamentally alters the nature and scope of the superintendent and DPI's roles, shifting it from an agency that supervises and oversees public education into a regulatory and enforcement body with little to no safeguards against overreach.” DeCook and other opponents argued the measure lacks due‑process protections, sets an inadequate response window for districts, leaves undefined what constitutes "full cooperation," and would allow sanctions without distinctions between technical and serious violations.

Superintendent Kirsten Basler testified that DPI already fields complaints and conducts formal investigations in limited areas (special education, certain federal programs and school approval), but said the agency lacks the investigative staff, legal expertise and funding to carry out the expanded duties proposed in the bill. Basler provided DPI's internal data on workload: historically DPI received 13 formal special‑education complaints that required about 710.5 hours of investigative work; extrapolating to a broader scope, she said the department estimates roughly 87 formal complaints would require about 4,737 hours annually — the equivalent of more than 2.3 full‑time employees. Basler asked the committee for an appropriation for additional staff or funding for contractors if the committee moves the bill forward.

Committee members asked sponsors and witnesses about specific features. Senator Beard said the complaint form included in the bill would limit complainants to residents of the school district or parents of enrolled students and that it would ask complainants to identify what law they believed was violated and what local remedies they had pursued. Supporters argued that requirement would prevent frivolous complaints; opponents said DPI already has limited authority under existing administrative rules (cited as Administrative Code Article 67‑22) and warned the bill duplicates or expands that framework without clear procedural safeguards.

Other points the committee discussed: - The bill allows a complaint to be filed by (a) a state resident who is a qualified elector or a parent of a child enrolled in the district, (b) a majority of the local school board, or (c) the county superintendent of schools; DPI would then decide whether to review. - Corrective actions must include timelines and suggested remedial steps; if a district fails to comply, DPI may issue a written warning and later sanctions, including withholding up to 2 percent of state aid for the school year. - A district that loses in an administrative proceeding could be assessed DPI's hearing costs and reasonable attorney fees; likewise, the bill provides a private right to seek judicial relief and recover costs and fees if a parent's rights are violated.

Supporters said the financial penalty is a necessary backstop to produce compliance. Opponents repeatedly warned that even a small percentage withheld could translate into significant local budget impacts, that the 10‑day window for requesting a hearing is too short, and that the bill provides no clear standard for what constitutes "full cooperation." Several witnesses also raised concerns about protecting federal confidentiality obligations (FERPA and IDEA) during any DPI review.

The committee heard a mix of legal and practical objections and requests for clarifying amendments; Superintendent Basler urged the committee to add funding so DPI could implement any new duties. The hearing closed without a formal vote on the bill and the committee moved to its next item.

The record shows prolonged debate over the bill's scope, due process safeguards and DPI capacity; lawmakers signaled interest in balancing parental enforcement options and procedural protections for districts.