Last updated on 2015-10-29
The Blue Ribbon Task Force on Teachers and Students holds its final meeting next week Thursday, October 29. Thursday’s agenda lists the following topics under “Recommendations”:
- English Language Learner Factor (ELL)
- Sparsity Factor
- Funding Formula
- Capital Outlay
- Pension Levy
- Reserve Funds
- Revenue Sources
- Teacher Recruitment/Retention
- Innovation Learning
- Shared Services
- Accountability
I’m surprised at the length of the list. I would think by this point, the Blue Ribboneers would have boiled it down to one simple bullet point: Raise Teacher Pay. Jigglings of the funding formula won’t make that happen. Changing the sparsity or ELL factors would seem to only move state funds around without increasing the net amount available to pay every teacher more. Draining the reserves held by schools may produce a one-time boost in pay, but reducing schools’ ability to buffer themselves from the uncertainties of the economy and the Legislature seems a steep price to pay for meager and less-than-sustainable salary gains.
“Innovation learning” looks like a refugee from an unrelated task force. The Blue Ribbon panel started with the assumption stated by co-chari Senator Deb Soholt (R-14/Sioux Falls) last June that “teachers are doing a good job… [and] kids are getting out of the system in good shape.” The notion that we must somehow “innovate learning” seems to lie outside the scope of a panel convened to discuss meaningful funding of K-12 education.
“Shared Services”—like what? the circuit-riding teachers Dan Guericke proposed at the August meeting? Is “shared services” code for another consolidation push?
“Accountability”—I worry this is code for expecting teachers to do more work for whatever additional money the Blue Ribbon panel may make available. If the Soholt/Blue Ribbon postulate that “teachers are doing a good job” holds, why would we need more accountability? Any push for greater “accountability” fails to recognize that teachers are already doing more work than South Dakota pays them for. South Dakota teachers can get better pay right now simply by moving across the border in any direction, without facing any major increase in hours, duties, or “accountability” hoops. South Dakota doesn’t need more accountability from its teachers; teachers need and deserve more pay from South Dakota.
The only increase in accountability we need is on the Legislative side: if the Blue Ribbon panel and the Legislature don’t turn these bullet points into more money in teachers’ pockets, and if South Dakota continues to accept a teacher shortage and decline in K-12 education driven by its humiliating 30-year reign as the tightest wad on teacher pay in the country, then we should hold our Legislature accountable in 2016 by voting them out of office.
Like their going to do something,
I’m guessing that “accountability” partly means getting rid of so-called tenure. This is the belief that after a teacher has been teaching a view years the school district can’t get rid of the teacher. Of course this isn’t true. In this state a teacher can easily be fired-I’ve seen it done.
looks like a laundry list.
I’m still waiting for legislative actionable items.
I was in my 18th year of teaching when I decided to leave the profession to be able to afford to send my own four kids to college. I went into sales and doubled my income in one year and tripled it shortly after. I didn’t go into teaching to get rich, but I was working way too hard and putting in way too many hours, summer included, to be earning less than $40,000 per year. My son has decided to teach in any state EXCEPT South Dakota so he can make a decent living.
This list is depressing, if it had only the one bullet point of Teacher Recruitment and Retention, it would be positive. This list is not positive.
Most districts deficit spend. Some have built up reserves to be prepared for 0% increases or a 10% cut when the legislature and/or the Governor gets tough. Those General Fund reserves are local monies from opting out in most districts, not state aid, so General Fund reserves should not be part of the discussion. Boards are ready and willing to spend General Fund reserves down if they can be guaranteed the funding will increase at a certain rate every year (I think this was the practice until it was just stopped) and your local board will increase teacher pay with that increased funding is my belief. We have to be smart, but this can be done if the state will take the action to increase funding.
I would like to comment about each bullet point because it is so obvious what is going to happen, that I can almost write the script. I wish that people cared, but the way we vote here in South Dakota, it is obvious the majority does not care about this.
I don’t mind them talking about this list of stuff next year, after they’ve taken action first on “revenue sources.” They need to provide a decade long road map on all of this, not assume they are going to solve everything immediately. It took 40 years to dig this hellhole, it will take a bit of time to reclaim it.
There does need to be some accountability, but it has to come at a level much higher than the teacher level. Political and economic leadership for once have to show accountability by addressing the education fiscal mess they’ve neglected for decades. Being “last in the nation” in every school finance category ought to be a disgrace, and a reasonable goal would be to increase teacher salaries to the midpoint of teacher salaries in surrounding states and student programs are at least equivalent to those in surrounding states.
They can do that by passing some immediate revenue (sales tax increase), that has to be offset by a gradually phased-in an income tax on upper income earners.
Owen, tenure may be a sham, but I’m still willing to dicker on continuing contract for $60K:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2015/06/14/grand-bargain-eclipse-continuing-contract-for-one-year-raise-sd-teacher-pay-to-60000/
LK, I’m sorry we lost you from the teaching corps. I suspect we both understand that public service in general usually means sacrificing some private-sector earning potential, but the differential between SD teacher salaries and other opportunities is too great, as shown by your son’s ability to make a decent living as a teacher everywhere else. We need to fix that.
Hank, I want to believe that if we don’t fix that problem this time around, we can motivate people to take action. We’ve had ten summer studies over the last two decades on school funding; they have produced no change in our teaching salary situation. If #11 also fails, we will have a lot of leverage to go to voters and say, “Time for change. Time for new legislators.”
After hours of talk, I will bet you a steak dinner Cory that the result of this task force will be that the gov will say that local boards can “opt out” of they really want to raise teacher pay. No one in a position of authority has the courage nor vision to recognize that economic development and job growth depends on an educated workforce. It is just too easy to say “lower taxes” and they will come.
Cory,
I hope something gets done, but if it doesn’t, I hope you are right about motivating voters (and candidates) to make the change.
RSterling, I like steak, and I wish I could win a nice well-done-to-crispy slab from you, but I worry that the outcome you describe is more likely. I invite the Governor to surprise me, but I’d say probability is better than 50% that the Governor will order the GOP leadership to kill any bill that simply increases revenue to raise teacher pay.
Donald, maybe that’s the most hopeful way to look at what MC sees as a laundry list. Maybe behind the scenes, the Blue Ribbon panel has decided to be a task force for the ages. Maybe they’ve realized exactly what you said: that we’ve dug ourselves into this problem over decades and that we are going to need a long-term plan plus ongoing conversations to dig ourselves back out.
But I’d still say, why wait? We have ten summer studies on which to build. The main problem, low teacher salaries, is staring us right in the face. Rather than getting bogged down in an omnibus bill that tries to address every part of the problem, just pass the new tax and write the rules that will get our teacher pay to 25th in the nation by 2020. I offered one such simple plan in one short blog post in June; just add a funding source, and we have a bill.
Then again, the Governor has gotten omnibus bills through on criminal justice and juvenile justice reform. Maybe we could go the kitchen-sink route.
Maybe its time to inform our legislators that if they in any way, shape, or form hinder increased funding for education that it will be their last trip to Pierre. We talk about voting them out, maybe its time to get serious and bring in a whole new House of Representatives for the 2017 session if they don’t get the job done.
Cory,
I don’t mean to say that the Legislature shouldn’t do things right away. The biggest need in this is revenue. The toughest thing to do is revenue. You can’t really bump teacher salaries up to be competitive unless there is new revenue. You can’t enhance education without revenue. Since nothing significant educationally gets done without new revenue, it’s a mistake to get sidetracked onto other issues if that prevents you from getting new revenue.
See the oldest trick in what passes for South Dakota “leadership” can be understood by this little bit of wisdom from yours truly: “If you don’t want to fix the problem, jiggle something and pretend like you did.” The fact that they have this laundry list means they are not focused on the problem. They are focused on the jiggling and the pretending.
Sensible, Donald. I can envision some fiscal schemes that would boost teacher salaries all at once, but the tax hikes necessary would likely never survive committee… although we did manage to get $85 million in new revenue for roads this year. Maybe we just need to offer Rep. Gosch an 85-mph speed limit to win his vote for higher teacher pay.
I agree that the laundry list needs to get pared down quickly during Thurdsay’s panel discussion, if not before. The committee members should be emailing and calling each other furiously this weekend, lining up ideas and commitments.
Greg, I am with you 100%. If we don’t get serious (and clean!) legislation to raise teacher pay, vote every legislator who stands in the way of that legislation out.
sounds like a plan.
Owen,
It was about sixteen years ago when Joe Graves was being interviewed by the School Board to be supt. he was asked “Can you fire a teacher?”
Graves said “It would be difficult , but yes I could.” Graves was right on that one!
Sorry Rod but no it isn’t that hard.What makes it tough is that due process still has to be done so they have to be fired for cause.
Well Cory, If I am appointed, then I might be on your list to be removed.
I would have to say ‘NO’ to anything that looks like:
‘Raise Taxes, give us the money, then just trust us.’
The state should not be involved in what teachers get paid. That discussion belongs between the teachers and the school boards.
The state should be involved in helping school districts finding other revenue sources, and finding areas where school districts can save.
To this end, I can support a forensic audit of all school districts books. I can understand have a modest reserve fund, however not one that is so large it can support the district for three to five years.
I can also support state sponsored distance learning programs. Where one teacher can serve students from multiple districts. I can get behind sharing services with other government entities like janitorial services or snow removal with the county or state.
I fully support all legislators, elected officials, and community leaders to support the schools, by donating their time to guest lecture, or even mentor students.
(BTW I have already been asked)
I know these may seem small items, however they add up.
I have no intention to hold teachers accountable, I would have every intention to hold school boards accountable for every dollar the state gives them.
MC, if you think school districts shouldn’t be keeping a large enough reserve to operate for multiple years, then do you agree with the state hoarding enough cash on hand to operate for 2 years with zero revenue? Doesn’t that seem unnecessary as well? Can we get an forensic audit of the state’s books also?
Posing this question for the policy wonks: How much would it amount to if instead of the $$ being skimmed from contractors’ tax for the GOED cronyism, was instead routed to education?
The short answer is, yes.
A bit of a longer answer deals with HB 1086 (killed in per-committee conference) where money in the reserves could be released to various office/departments when there are certain economic triggers. Depending on the results of the study
I served on my local school board for two terms from 1997-2003. Our K-12 district enrollment peaked around the late 90s, in the low to mid-900s and has steadily declined since then. Faced with a projected steady decline in enrollment and the inevitable Reductions-In-Force, our administration proposed and we approved, several years of belt-tightening measures, including freezing STEP increases for the certified staff (teachers). As I was on the Negotiations team, I began researching alternative forms of compensation for educators being used around the country at that time. I came across the Douglas County (Colorado) Schools’ Pay for Performance Plan which, according to their literature, they first implemented in 1992. What piqued my interest at the time was that they appropriated local dollars for alternative and additional types of compensation for their teachers, such as Skill Block Pay, Student Responsibility Incentive Pay and a form of what could be seen as Merit Pay tied to a successful yearly performance evaluation as a ‘proficient’ teacher which would entitle you to a STEP increase.
In March of 2000, I got my fellow board members to agree to a proposal which we offered to our LEA in negotiations that would create an Educational Development Incentive Grant Program. It was a pretty easy sell and the first year we set aside $6000 that was available to the certified staff on a Request for Proposal (RFP) basis. Our stated purpose was to promote and encourage “teacher leadership, innovation, collaboration and best professional practices.” We would award up to $1500 to individuals or teams during a given contract year for compensatory purposes. We set March 1st as the deadline for applicants and notified successful proposals by May 1st. A committee comprised of 3 teachers (not eligible that year), one school board member and one administrator reviewed proposals and recommended to the Board those that were to be granted. We gave the most RFP weight to ‘specific teaching and learning outcomes’ (20 pts), ‘how a proposal was change and innovation oriented’ (20 pts), ‘how it was designed to improve instruction’ (30 pts), and ‘how an applicant planned to incorporate technology into the implementation of the their proposal’, (20 pts); 140 points possible. That first year we approved projects with names like, “Integrating Multiple Intelligences”, “Promoting School Improvement Through Faculty Leadership”, “Middle School Mixers”, a local “Dam Project”, Exploring Art in Grade 3″. We would end up appropriating up $20,000 the following year and saw maybe 40-50% of the faculty buying in and interested.
This was but one concept geared toward enhancing teacher pay that our board would consider and adopt over the next 3-4 years. For negotiations in April 2001, our Board put forth the following proposals:
1. $1000 per fate with point system on salary schedule
2. Lane changes for educational attainment
3. RIF policy
4. Longevity pay for earned Masters Degree +, considering local experience
5. $10 per month allowance on $1000 deductible health insurance plan
6. Co-curricular salary enhancement proposal
As a Board, I believe we were on the cusp of seriously considering an alternative form of compensation for our teachers, based on performance indicators and tangible, documentable outcomes.
If you’d like to read more, please respond.
I’m sorry LedZ but this sounds like a bunch of bureaucratic mumble jumble to be used in a effort to justify not paying teachers more.
I have experience with similar performance pay plans that do work. However you need to have a decent salary schedule to begin with.
Quite the contrary. During our 2001 negotiations, I developed a new salary schedule which kept some of the features of the traditional Step/Lane matrix but placed more emphasis on horizontal movement within the schedule so that any given teacher could reach the lanes on the right with a combination of points earned and CEUs or grad/undergrad post-secondary credits more quickly than they could bottom or top out, depending on how you look at it, under the current arrangement. You see, back in 2001, we had teachers who started their careers with our district in the 60s and 70s, and under the traditional model (Step/Lane schedule) they would never make $40,000 a year. In one version of the new, proposed salary schedule, I would have phased everyone in the first year (2001/02 SY), which would have resulted in varying individual increases from a low of 1.7% to a high of 6.58%, with an average 4.24% increase. Infinitely better than the Step freezes they were just forced to endure. Guess what happened when I presented the concept, including spreadsheets which illustrated the entire proposal, to the LEA in negotiations? Even though they could see that it was now possible to attain, at that time what seemed only a pipe dream, a $40,000 yearly salary in as little as 5-10 years. I envisioned a faculty of which 50-75% possessed Master’s degrees in their chosen field. I also postulated that our attempts to augment their compensation with the Incentive Grant Program would foster collaboration in all things educational and outweigh the potential negative effects of competition. When the LEA negotiating team looked at my spreadsheets, each one found their cell and immediately complained that how come teacher A only gets a 1.7% increase and teacher Z gets 6.58%? They had until the next session to study the concept and offer a counter proposal. When they came back to the table, they summarily dismissed the idea as too radical. Bear in mind that state aid at the time was approximately $3660/student. I believe, mathematically speaking, such a concept would be sustainable with whatever increase the state makes in the per student formula. Douglas County Schools continues to effectively use its Performance Pay system to competitively compensate its faculty at what it views as a fair market value in excess of $65,000 a year, based on objective, peer-developed and reviewed criteria and benchmarks. Think about it, a 35 year veteran in the SF schools might reach that level of compensation.
LedZ, keep the details coming. The plan you implemented remains in effect at Douglas?
One overarching question, along the lines of what Nick and SuperSweet say: does your plan pay teachers more money for doing more work, or does it somehow inherently recognize and reward value that teachers are already bringing to South Dakota schools but are not being duly compensated for?
Put another way: suppose I’m choosing between working in a South Dakota district adopting your plan and a Minnesota or Wyoming district operating under a traditional compensation plan. Does staying in the South Dakota district under your plan mean I end up jumping through more hoops to get the same pay?
DD, total state funding for the Governor’s Office of Economic Development is $36.7 million, enough to raise every public K-12 teacher’s pay about $3,900, enough to help us trade places with Mississippi and move from 51st to 50th in the nation for teacher pay.
MC, I’m going to assert again that you’re not going to find the solution in waste and inefficiency. Squeeze the schools, and you won’t get much more juice.
But thank you for recognizing that teachers deserve a raise without more administrative/bureaucratic demands.
It is the teachers who are squawking the loudest. and why not? They’re the ones getting the shaft in this deal. They are doing the job. The school administrations need to own their part.
I would like to see an audit of every agency that receives state funds. That includes schools, medical clinics, job services, everything. The audits is make sure the money is going to were it is suppose to.
You would find more state money if you audited corrupt wingnut pols and their corrupt cronies.