The funding mechanism for Governor Dennis Daugaard’s teacher pay plan may have survived Legislative debate mostly intact, but the new K-12 funding formula that would apportion that money to South Dakota’s long-suffering teachers has been beaten into a mess. The House passed Senate Bill 131 yesterday with three amendments which drag us farther away from paying all South Dakota teachers what the market says they are worth.
In response to a House Appropriations amendment that appears to cut the minimum amount of new money schools must spend on increasing teacher pay by half, Rep. G. Mark Mickelson (R-13/Sioux Falls) appended the following underlined clause:
For each school district, the district’s increase in average teacher compensation from fiscal year 2016 to 2017 shall be equal to at least eighty-five percent of the district’s increase in local need, as defined in subdivision (2), from fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2017 and, notwithstanding any negotiated agreement, at least eighty-five percent of the increase in state aid to general education funding the school district receives for fiscal year 2017 less the amount of revenue generated in fiscal year 2016 pursuant to § 13-10-6 shall be used to increase instructional salaries and benefits for certified instructional staff [Senate Bill 131, excerpt of Section 27, as amended, 2016.03.08].
The Mickelson amendment removes from the calculation the local pension levy that the state is eliminating and subsuming into the general fund formula. That step at least honestly reflects that fact that that portion of state aid isn’t really new money, just reclassified money. The Mickelson amendment dictates how schools must use the new money, but it leaves in place the standard for average salaries to grow by 85% of local need. If followed strictly, that threshold would leave 138 out of 150 districts paying almost 6,800 out of 9,400 teachers less than the target $48,500 salary.
The second House amendment, from Blue Ribbon K-12 panel co-chair Rep. Jacqueline Sly (R-33/Rapid City) removes a cushion from the calculation of student enrollment. The current funding formula allows the Secretary of Education to base a school’s state aid on “either the school district’s fall enrollment or the average of the school district’s fall enrollment from the previous two years, whichever is higher.” The two-year average option insulates school districts from sharp changes in funding due to sudden, anomalous dips in enrollment. The Sly amendment strikes the two-year average option.
Rep. Sly said her amendment was intended to cover the extra $5 million that House Appropriations tucked into SB 131 with its reduction of the funded student-teacher ratio. Had we applied the Sly amendment to this year’s K-12 funding, 72 school districts would have lost over $5.5 million. The biggest loser would have been Sly’s own Rapid City school district, which would have lost $919,000.
The final successful amendment came from the newest member of the House, Rep. Wayne Steinhauer (R-9/Hartford), who added this statement of legislative intent:
It is the intent of the Legislature that any money appropriated for teacher compensation using the education funding plan included in this Act be used to directly improve teacher recruiting and retention and that the school districts advance this goal by increasing starting teacher salaries and providing for the rapid acceleration of teacher salaries for those below the midpoint in that teacher’s applicable pay scale [Senate Bill 131, Section 28, as amended, 2016.03.08].
Rep. Steinhauer said his business perspective tells him that if we’re having trouble recruiting and retaining teachers, we have to raise pay at the lower end of the scale. Raising pay for all teachers an equal percentage won’t do that job, said Rep. Steinhauer. I would disagree: raising pay for veteran teachers will keep them in the game longer as surely as raising starting pay will get new teachers to get into the game. But Rep. Steven Haugaard (R-10/Sioux Falls) worried that raising veteran teacher pay will just inflate their pensions and leave us still unable to recruit new teachers.
The House preferred Steinhauer’s and Haugaard’s reasoning, which seems likely to prompt a civil war between new and experienced teachers, hasten retirements, and the drain our teacher corps of older, more experienced, and arguably more politically active and influential teachers. The Steinhauer amendment feels like one more kiss-off to teachers who have dutifully labored under South Dakota’s last-in-the-nation teacher pay for 30 years: just when we find the will to raise money to pay teachers what they are worth, the Steinhauer slaps back our veteran teachers and says, “No, you guys still aren’t worth it.”
When I multiply the amounts SB 131 as now amended tries to guarantee to teachers by the number of teachers it funds and compare that amount to my estimate of the amounts being spent on teacher pay this year, I find a net gain in statewide teacher pay of only $26.3 million. Divide that new funding by the teachers SB 131 funds (and we’re back to assuming South Dakota has 365.5 too many teaching FTEs, a worse staff underfunding than in the original SB 131), and we get $2,905 per teacher. Divide that $26.3 million by the number of teachers we actually have, and the per-teacher raise is only $2,792. Plug that average raise into the NEA teacher pay stats for 2014 that have informed this entire debate, and instead of rising to 37th in teacher pay as the Governor’s target salary of $48,500 promised, we merely trade places with Mississippi for 50th.
SB 131 is still better than nothing. But it’s worse than what the Blue Ribbon panel said we needed to do.
Bernie Sanders won Michigan last night and I am hoping that Democrats take heart with this. I hope they elect him as president and that the enthusiasm generated by this will take hold here in South Dakota to rid ourselves of these who do not listen to the people. These old guard legislators are the establishment that must be banished from the political landscapes of our state and country as soon as possible. Their shelf life has expired as they have gathered dust and rust. Go Bernie Go! For the sake of not only our country but for our state, the establishment must go.
Haugaard is a piece of work who didn’t want to do squat for education funding and Steinhauer is showing his lack of understanding of education issues. We are not just losing the teachers on the low end of the pay scale. We are losing them across the board. Veteran math and science teachers, especially, are like precious rare gems.
Also, potential teachers are not dumb. They understand economics better than most. If we are going to raise the new teachers ;ay but not the veteran teachers, it continues to send the message that SD does not value teachers. How are we going to get good quality students to go into teaching and stay in SD with the legislature sending this message?!?!
Haugaard and Steinhauer are saying we just want to do enough to keep the new teachers from quitting in the first five years and then we don’t really need to do anything to keep veteran teachers because we don’t really value them. These guys wouldn’t understand good public policy if you wrote it on their face in permanent marker.
We have used and abused teachers in SD for too long with our underfunded education system. We have benefitted from teachers who consider their profession a calling and not a job. They have accepted below market rate salaries for years, but that trend is coming to an end. You can see through the lack of new teachers in the profession that they are moving to new professions or new states.
There is going to be a shortage of good quality teachers in the coming years and the SD legislature is saying “whad ya gonna do?” or worse turning a blind eye to the issue.
Maybe Haugaard and Steinhauer treat their own employees like teachers where they try to pay them just enough so they don’t quit rather than rewarding them for a job well done. That may work for a little while, but over the long run the word gets out and our education system suffers for it.
The future of this state is not going to be based on enticing low-wage employers from other states to move here or to try to tax everyone less than neighboring states. We’ve been there done that! The future of this state rests on having a superior education system and having homegrown entrepreneurs and businesses developed by a well educated citizenry. How hard is this to understand?
well, staying on topic in reference to this specific blog post …..
Wow, Cory. I would say this is unbelievable, but I guess it is just the way “they” do thing here in the SD Legislature. It’s a pea shell game. Move it around here, move it around there.
I worry that those that were paying attention and helped to apply pressure at the legislative level (appearances, phone calls, emails) don’t know or aren’t aware that this carving down of the pie is going on. This is not good.
If the intent is not just recruitment but retention then school districts will need to raise the top end as well as the starting pay. If you hit a ceiling after just a few years of teaching then those new teachers will just get out and find something or move to a different state taking their experience with them.
This can’t be considered just a short term fix to the teacher shortage. We need to take the long view of getting more young people interested in teaching and want to stay in once they are in. This will take raising all levels of the salary schedule not just the starting pay.
We also need to look at the recruitment of veteran teachers and not just new ones. With the current enrollment of students in teacher education programs being so low low we have to look to find veteran teachers as well to fill our needs. Those people will not take jobs in the state if all of the money is at the bottom of the scale.
Hopefully this is where local control will step in and recognize the need in all parts of the pay scale not just at the bottom.
They sure get creative in finding new and different ways to tell our veteran teachers they’re just not worth it.
We need to keep calling our reps and telling them this is still not acceptable!
South Dakota: waiting for Kansas to show them the way.
Jerry, I agree that Bernie Sanders has the kind of enthusiasm and dedication to a clear message for the 99% that South Dakota Democrats can use. The trick is translating enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and the national policy battle into activism (and candidates!) for Legislature who can tackle vital state-level issues like teacher pay.
Darin, you explain the situation well. Steinhauer and Haugaard appear to be looking for the cheapest possible solution: don’t worry about retaining top talent; just get a lot of new teachers in now with better starting pay (which is still cheaper than paying veteran teachers what they are worth), make the teacher shortage disappear short-term, and hope we can keep recruiting new short-termers as fast as they leave when they hit the top of the truncated salary schedule and realize they still need to go elsewhere to maximize their lifetime earnings.
Dana P, it is tough. Explaining and selling the sales tax was easier, with clearer statewide numbers. SB 131, the nitty gritty, makes even my head spin (I’m still not perfectly clear on how the Mickelson amendment interacts with the preceding line of Section 27), and changes in funding get lost in the individual stats for each school district, which won’t make the headlines in the big media… unless someone collects exhaustive data on how much every teacher in South Dakota is paid now and how much every teacher is paid on September 1 of the new school year.
Brett, yes!
We need two things to make sure that all we get out of this year’s effort is a weak, short-term, incomplete fix:
1. Strong local activism demanding courage and commitment from school boards.
2. Strong legislators who commit themselves to protecting and expanding the Blue Ribbon plan to produce real, ongoing results.
Yep, we should have found the money in the current budget instead of giving the Republicans an additional regressive 1/2 penny to play with….
If the GOP really wants to increase teacher pay, then make them find the money. Make the GOP define what their intent was and is. Instead, we have allowed the GOP to claim the victory in the teacher pay issue, while behind the scenes they are already working to channel that money in other directions.
The fact, that the initial HB 1182 bill did not mention “education,” and was not even amended to address that fact until they were quite sure they had the votes, only demonstrates how this 1/2 cent increase is merely a political smokescreen over shadowing the truth about GOP tendencies and the unfortunate eventual reality when it comes to finding a honest solvency in dealing with the current teacher pay crisis.
You can argue, that what is left is better than nothing, but the diluting has already begun, unfortunately, and it will not get any better. I thought this reality would take a few years and not just a few weeks or days for the GOP to already be up to their tricks on this issue and the budget, and the channeling of the 1/2 cent in other directions, but apparently not.
A raw deal is exactly what you Democrats were going to get when going into bed with the SDGOP Establishment. The wealthy are the bigger beneficiaries, not the teachers.
And what the SDGOP and their Democratic bed partners seem to be saying is that the teacher shortage was caused by hiring too many teachers. So instead they are using this issue to line the pockets of crony capitalists. This is what is called pragmatism.
I told you this would happen.
The Blindman
Can somebody clarify if this makes the raises for good teachers more progressive or regressive? I am against the socialistic method of giving raises across the boards.
Cory, I’m not following your reasoning for only coming up with $26.3 million more for teacher pay. Granted, I haven’t been in the weeds figuring out the nitty gritty of this bill, but I don’t think the amendments hurt the amount going to schools. I’m actually hearing the Sly amendment will help our school a little more than the original bill.
I would agree also that the effect of 1182 has been oversold, but I think we are still talking about a statewide teacher pay raise on average of around 6k. That is nothing to sneeze at.
Cory, I’m not seeing any issues with SB 131 being raised on the Associated School Board’s twitter feed. If we were only raising $26.3 million for teacher pay, I think we would be hearing from them on this.
I see the Democrats in the Senate tried to send SB 131 back to conference committee because of the amendments the House put on it. The Democrats were joined by the Dark-Age Republicans who opposed 1182, but that motion was defeated 19-16. SB 131 passed the senate with the house amendments 25-10.
wow. is this as bad as it seems? it has been a good week however when I am agreeing with craig, brett and almost always pragmatic [not the Sibson kind] wiken:)
The governor’s plan, HB 1182, SB 131 etc. are carrying out the vision laid out by the governor. It does not go far enough, but it gets us back in the ballgame in the competition for good teachers amongst the regional states and other professions. The educational system was hemorrhaging and this bill puts a tourniquet around the wound that stops the major bleeding. We still need continued care.
Cory, I’m afraid your well-intentioned and thoughtful criticism of the governor’s plan has been taken by the far right as confirmation of their skepticism and vote against 1182. I think you should clarify that rather than being ineffective, 1182 does not go far enough. I also don’t think that your $2,900 figure is correct as far as what we can expect as far as a raise for teachers statewide. From the numbers I have seen, it is $6,000 or higher on average.
Darin, my numbers may have shifted since your question:
When I multiply the average teacher pay in each district in FY2015 by the number of teacher FTE’s reported for each district in FY2015, then multiply by an estimated 2% raise in FY2016 (reflecting 2% increase in per-student allocation) I get $393,309,589.
When I multiply those average salaries by the minimum-85% factor and then multiply by the number of teachers funded under the SB 131 formula, I get $425,274,642.
If everyone follows SB 131 to the letter and satisfies the absolute minimum requirements, we will see $32.0 million in new money in teachers’ pockets. Reaching $6K or $8K more will require a lot more effort from local school boards.
The Sly amendment, eliminating the prior-two-years-enrollment-average option, cannot by mathematical definition help any school. Schools right now get funding based on actual current enrollment or the average enrollment of the two prior years, whichever is higher. A growing school district gets funded by current enrollment under the current option and under the Sly amendment, no change. If your district is growing, the Sly Amendment has no effect. If your district is shrinking, your district loses funding faster.
I can’t control the propaganda the right-wing may spin from my analysis and commentary.
Cory, this exercise might reveal that I haven’t had a math class since high school. But here goes nothing:
Average teacher pay in each district for FY2015 is $40,800 times the number of statewide FTE’s of 9,430 equals $384,750,000 rounded up to $385 million was spent on teacher salaries statewide in FY 2015.
SB 131 funds a target of $48,800 per teacher which is an increase of $8,000. $8,000 increase times 85% required to go to salary increases equals $6,800. $6,800 plus FY2015 salary of $40,800 equals $47,600. $47,600 times target total teacher FTE of 9,074 equals $432 million rounded.
SB 131 provides $432 million in FY2016 minus the $385 million average teacher salary in FY2015 equals $47 million for teacher pay increases. $47 million divided by 9,430 (actual number of teachers) is $5,000 per teacher increase.
Using rough numbers, $5,000 is the minimum increase statewide. We all know that this is going to be much higher because each school cannot afford to be below the 85% level because they would lose half of their increase. 95% gets you another $500. 100% get you to $5,750. If your school fits the governors target student teacher ratio you would also have more money per teacher.