The Mitchell School District of southeastern South Dakota has made some tough budget choices this year, but the board of education and teachers have reached a consensus that appears to be the best solution given the circumstances.

The Mitchell Board of Education voted unanimously to pass the measure, according to The Daily Republic. With cuts to salaries, retirement and Social Security contributions, the paper reports that the district will save $217,164 during the following school year.

Some school programs have also been affected by budget cuts, including athletics. The Argus Leader reports that the district has realized $31,498 in savings by reducing activity costs. One of the means of cutting down the extra-curricular budget will be eliminating transportation to events and games. With the high price of fuel and North Dakota's wide open spaces, bus trips can add up to a sizable portion of activity funds.

Teachers did manage to hold onto existing benefits after accepting salary cuts, although a reduction in insurance contributions was mulled by the district, according to the Republic. The district said a salary cut was more fair, since some employees do not receive benefits.

A unanimous ruling by the South Dakota Supreme Court has determined that the state's educational budget is constitutionally sound.

The case was supported by a majority of state public schools and brought to the court by a number of families, which contend that the state's system of funding districts is resulting in a lack of resources for proper education.

Despite the court's admission that the plaintiff's complaints were valid and pointed to shortcomings in certain areas, justices didn't find the state had violated the constitution's mandate of educational requirements.

"I am pleased with this opinion because the appropriate place to determine school funding is the Legislature, not the courts," said Governor Dennis Daugaard. "I believe we should focus on student achievement, not spending, as the best measure of educational success. That approach is very consistent with the Supreme Court's decision."

The ruling wasn't a complete defeat for the plaintiffs, however, as the wording of the decision altered the previous interpretation of the constitution. Justice Judith Meierhenry, who authored the ruling, indicated that the state must provide "free, adequate and quality" education for its schoolchildren. The inclusion of "quality," which isn't part of the amendment, may alter the definition and open the door for further recourse.