The Blue Ribbon Task Force on Teachers and Students was told yesterday not to worry about South Dakota’s purported “teacher shortage.” According to the Department of Education, We have more teachers entering the field than leaving:
Over the course of the next five years, it is estimated that public schools in South Dakota will need an additional 3,059 teachers in order to meet the number of teachers needed to maintain a 14:1 student-teacher ratio. This number includes a total of 1,024 teachers lost due to retirement; 601 teachers due to estimated student growth; and 1,434 teachers leaving the field for reasons other than retirement.
…Considering these three critical sources of teachers entering the profession – 1) in-state teacher preparation programs, 2) out-of-state teachers coming into the state, and 3) teachers entering the profession through an alternative route, it can be estimated that these sources combined will provide a potential teacher pool of 3,459. This includes an estimated 1,721 teachers entering the profession through university teacher preparation programs; 1,403 educators prepared out-of-state who come to South Dakota to teach; and 335 teachers who enter the profession through either the Alternative Certification or Teach for America programs. The estimated supply of teachers indicates the potential teacher pool will be 400 more than the minimal five-year need [South Dakota Department of Education, “Trends in Educator Preparation and Employment,” presented to Blue Ribbon Task Force on Teachers and Students, 2015.09.09, pp. 6–9].
Strangely, that abundant labor market isn’t clearing vacancies. The same report says that last year, 5.46% of teaching vacancies, 69.18 FTEs, were not filled on the first day of school. Some task force members appear to doubt the rosy workforce projections:
“What we potentially have in the next five years is about 400 more teachers than the need we projected calls for,” said Abby Javurek-Humig, director of the department’s Division of Assessment and Accountability. “Not taking into account the depth of the teacher pool, the resources available.”
But task force members wondered if a buffer of 400 extra teachers would be enough. Schools are already starting out with unfilled teaching jobs [Patrick Anderson, “Teachers Wanted: Grads Leaving S.D. Despite Shortage,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2015.09.09].
The Blue Ribboneers may find cause for their doubt in a report conducted by Dr. Mark Baron from USD for the School Administrators of South Dakota and the Associated School Boards of South Dakota. Baron’s report found that 17% of responding school districts reported failing to fill all teacher vacancies in school years 2012, 2013, and 2014. 79% of responding superintendents rated the teacher applicant pool “inadequate” or “very inadequate.” Only 27% found the elementary teaching applicant pool inadequate, but 65% said the same of the middle school pool and 86% gave that poor report of the high school pool. 70% of superintendents say they had to settle for new hires who didn’t meet their original expectations. And 92% said it’s getting harder to find qualified applicants for K-12 teaching positions.
The DoE says we may be able to fill some of those vacancies via distance learning. However, the report notes that last year, students completed only 48.66% of virtual school enrollments. That average has held around 50% for the last five years. That doesn’t sound like a step toward adequate education.
How do the superintendents in Baron’s survey say we could expand the applicant pool? 48% say increase pay and benefits. 16% say increase state funding of K-12 education. 16% say make salary competitive with other states.
According to Anderson, some Blue Ribboneers may listen to those superintendents and look for more money for education. Alas, their big idea appears to be an increase in our regressive sales tax. Why is it that when legislators move at all on K-12 funding, they tend to move regressively?
But at least panel members are finally talking about policy alternatives. We’ll see whether they believe the DoE or the superintendents on the teacher shortage and what actions they brainstorm at their next meeting on October 1.
Some other numbers of interest from the DoE report:
- Average starting salary for South Dakota teachers: $30,483. Range: $24,000 to $37,510.
- Average salary for South Dakota teachers: $40,023. Range: $28,125 to $48,343.
- 12% of teachers leave their schools each year, but 22% of that 12% go to work at another South Dakota school district.
- The DoE says that K-12 enrollment will increase over the next five years from 131,515 right now to 139,487 by school year 2020. In projecting that the number of K-12 teachers will rise from 9,362 to 9,963, the Department assumes that we will hire enough teachers to maintain the current statewide student-teacher ratio of 14:1. “Special Education teachers who work exclusively with a small group of students, for example, are included in the FTE count used to generate this ratio as are all teachers at the high school level,” which explains why I regularly face classrooms of 30 students or more when I walk into Aberdeen Central.
But surely we all know that 79% is not a 100%, so therefore, there is not a teacher shortage in 21% of the schools. Until we reach at least 100% or in republican ciphering, even higher, nothing happens. The blue ribbon farce continues to impress with their lockstep lemming walking of the Daugaard agenda, right over the cliff. Much like my past dreams of a perfect summer, a picnic every day and a party every night, to accomplish nothing.
We have a teacher glut in South Dakota. Who knew?! When supply is greater than demand the market will support lower salaries. Certainly no reason to raise salaries if the supply is excessive. And if we change the ratio of students/teachers to 16/1 there will be an even bigger teacher glut coming. No worries. Really. Right Dept of Ed.? We see where the administration is going with this.
Who knew? Evidently not the superintendents doing the hiring….
For thrills and spills, my money is on yet another Blue Ribbon soon to be scheduled for next summer. We shall call it a number 2 for obvious reasons.
Of the 1,721 teachers being educated in SD through university teaching preparation programs…how many of them plan to stay and teach in SD….or move to a state that provides competitive pay to start their teaching careers.
I think those at DOE took ‘superficial’ math in school…and missed the class on analysis.
I think the DoE is using that new math I’ve heard so much about and now I see the problem. The bottom line is if the positions are being filled. If they aren’t the “glut” of teachers doesn’t exist. I know good teachers that have left to weld, drive truck or do something completely outside the field because the Blue Ribboners, Legislature and status quo leadership refuses to address teacher pay.
My word this parsing of information by this panel is infuriating.
At yesterday’s BRTF meeting, the DOE most assuredly did NOT say that there was not a teacher shortage in SD; nor did the DOE claim that we do not need to worry about that shortage. I am disappointed that you have selectively chosen evidence form that meeting out of context to prove a claim you (not DOE or the BRTF) chose to make. Two key things are ignored in your accusations: 1) that director of the department’s Division of Assessment and Accountability, Abby Javurek-Humig, began her report with a clarification that this was a 10,000 foot view of teacher needs and pipeline forecasts – each was a look at gross numbers – not at specific needs and placements. There was not an assumption that these “new” teachers could fill all these”new” positions. 2) Statistics on unfilled positions was presented (page 25). This marked the first time that the BRTF saw statistical evidence of the teacher shortage. Before language like “difficult to fill” had been used; now the shortage has been made concrete. That point created great discussion about what schools had done since as early as February (when they do registration) to try to fill positions and still have vacancies on the first day. Difficult school district placements and specific content areas were also looked at: more clear evidence of shortage.
The discussion pointed the TF toward seeing the teacher shortage crisis (and it is the unfilled positions, not the “difficulty hiring” that elevates it to crisis above a “problem”) as an issue of teacher retention. The data showed that this is not as much an issue of getting people to begin as teachers (recruitment), but instead more an issue of needing to curb turn-over (retention).
This was a unique discussion with legislative and executive policy makers and stakeholders of SD well represented that put out numbers like $70 – $100 million for dedicated teacher salaries (not general education funding) to address this problem and make SD regionally competitive. Data (and context) is driving this discussion.
O, thank you for clarifying based on the actual discussion. I haven’t been able to sit down to hear the audio yet; the documents by themselves do require more context. I am relieved that everyone in the room, including Jaruvek-Humig herself, is urging us not to look at the report as an excuse not to act, as high-altitude numbers that do not fully depict the hiring realities on the ground.
$70M–$100M—let’s see, at current staff levels and current dollars, that could raise us anywhere between 41st and 25th in the nation for teacher salaries. Not bad! Now comes the gutsy part: raising that money.
As it was in the past so it willl be in the future.Nothing will get done. something like the PUC. Only here we will say we had the meeting to say we had one.
O when this happens, and I hope it does, I’ll believe it. In my opinion nothing will come of this or at the most some window dressing will happen.
I’ve seen teachers fight for better wages for decades and nothing has happened. There seems to be money for business the legislature worked hard for money for roads. Let’s see this same dedication to the teaching profession.
Mr. H, it would be even gutsier if they raised the money and focused it on the good teachers who really teach well instead of socialistic rewarding all of them including the ones that just don’t deliver results. That would be gutsy.
And no raises for fatcat administrators at all. None.
I agree grud, no raises for the fatcats.
For the fatcat administrators. None.
937% v. 5.7% increase on CEO v. ave. worker wage (since ’78). purchasing power of
$4. v. $22. (since ’73). huffpo “the end of GOP?” 9.9.15
I find the comments of the DOE amusing if not down right lacking in support.
It appears that authors of this study have not been in any public school classroom in since they may have graduated. The relationship between money for “fatcats” and teacher salaries in this matter is a stretch. I certainly do not support increases in administrator salaries. I do support increased consolidation of districts. I do support increased salary for our dedicated teachers in the school districts of South Dakota.
I have been a parent volunteer in our classrooms as late as the 2014-15 school year and know the abilities of our professional staff as well as the barriers they face. Perhaps, Mr. Grudznick, you too should volunteer your time to assist to teach some of the classes in your local districts for a couple of weeks and participate actively in the local education. Not just a day and a day there, get into the “heat” (particularly in the Fall and Spring) of the classroom and absorb the actual situation. Understand the hardships teachers fact with lack of supplies and the lack of support from parents and community members.
The supposed legislative representatives of the people of SD should try as well. They could travel to their local school districts at 80 mph and participate actively in the educational system. Perhaps their eyes could open just a bit. Salary increases are justified for our dedicated professionals.
The SD DOE has no idea what is happening in our schools and, further, no idea why teachers are leaving our schools. They have not listened to our teachers, they have not listened to our informed parents and now they refuse to listen to their one time “buddies” the school administrators. What does the DOE wish to use as refutation? A trumped up set of “statistical data” for which they have no justification nor proven methodology of extraction.
Let us offer some ideas:
1. The House Education Committee in conjunction with the Governor should make significant changes in the Department of Education leadership.
2. Legislature should provide an adequate tax base specifically for our public schools to provide for K-Graduate School.
3. To work with SD’s congressional delegation to increase the federal share for funding of South Dakota’s schools.
4. To require school districts to include teachers a “place at the table” in designing curriculum for the local school district.
5. Testing should be developed by the individual classroom teacher and other teachers teaching the same subjects.
6. Teacher salaries should be increased to retain those teachers who are presently here and attract graduating teachers and teachers from other states.
Obviously, additions to the above can be made. But it might be a place to begin discussion. It is a time to begin.