Press "Enter" to skip to content

Amendments May Be Whittling SD Teacher Pay Raise from $8,500 to $3,500

In the face of six amendments targeting the Governor’s new K-12 funding formula, House Majority Leader Brian Gosch (R-32/Rapid City) deferred Senate Bill 131 from yesterday to this morning (House convenes at 10 a.m.!). A source tells me those amendments could include some efforts by agonized Republicans to  exact a pound of flesh from the education community for the gains promised by the Blue Ribbon K-12 reform package. Watch for SB 131 grousers to press for small-school consolidation, less capital outlay flexibility, and maybe even a resurrection of bad old 2012 House Bill 1234’s merit pay and attack on continuing contract labor protections.

Representatives wanting to truly improve SB 131 rather than just finding ways to get back at schools and teachers could consider rescinding a portion of the big House Appropriations amendment passed last week. That amendment decreased the lower bound of the target student-teacher ratio from 12.5 to 12, increasing funding for smaller schools by $5 million and easing the pressure to cut staff. That change is fine.

But the House Appropriations change weakened the assurance that the new state K-12 funding will go to its intended purpose of raising teacher pay to $48,500. The original SB 131 required that 90% of the increase in state aid go toward teacher compensation (pay plus benefits). Senate State Affairs amended that minimum compensation boost to 85% of the percentage increase in state aid—in other words, if state aid went up 20%, teacher pay and benefits had to go up at least 17%. Last week, House Appropriations amended that minimum compensation boost to 85% of the percentage increase in local need.

Let me put some real local numbers to those formulas. I pull the following numbers from my SB 131 spreadsheet, based on the Blue Ribbon K-12 panel’s Formula Spreadsheet and Department of Education data. Lacking data on benefits, I assume that schools would increase pay proportionate to benefits and look only at average salaries:

  • Current local need for Aberdeen schools, calculated by the existing per-student funding formula: $21.9 million.
  • State share of local need, under Cutler-Gabriel rule: 53.8%.
  • Calculated current state aid to Aberdeen: $11.8 million.
  • New money to Aberdeen schools under SB 131 (all of which should come from state aid): $2.6 million.
  • Percent increase in state aid: 22.3%, 85% of which is 19.0%.
  • Precent increase in local need: 12.0%, 85% of which is 10.2%.
  • Reported average teacher pay in Aberdeen in school year 2014–2015: $41,985.
  • Estimated current average teacher pay in Aberdeen (assume 2.0% increase, commensurate with this year’s increase in per-student allocation): $42,825.
  • Average teacher pay obtained by keying minimum increase to state aid increase: $50,960.
  • Average teacher pay obtained by keying minimum increase to local need increase: $47,202.

By basing the minimum compensation threshold on total local need instead of the state share of K-12 general funds, the House Appropriations amendment cut the amount of new money dedicated to teacher pay by almost half.

Now I’m already running on stats on stilts, but let’s zoom out to the big picture. By my calculations, the state-aid-based minimum required South Dakota’s 150 school districts to put $68.1 million in teachers’ pockets next year. The local-need-based amendment reduces that amount to $32.0 million. Divided by the number of teachers funded in SB 131, that’s an average statewide teacher pay raise of $3,500, markedly less than the $8,500 the Governor told us we would get from our increased sales tax dollars would get us.

Note that the amendment in question doesn’t reduce funding; it only reduces the requirement on how schools spend that funding. Restoring the state-aid basis of the 85% threshold wouldn’t cost the state another half-penny; it would only put back the requirement that schools use that money for its intended purpose, raising teacher pay to competitive levels.

House, please toss aside whatever sandbags Rep. Gosch and his anti-education caucus try to drop on SB 131. But consider restoring the more rigorous requirements for spending HB 1182 dollars on teacher pay.

23 Comments

  1. Steve Sibson 2016-03-08 09:57

    “anti-education caucus”

    BS, the conservatives wanted to take $75 million out of video lottery and but it all into a teacher pay fund.

    “Precent increase in local need: 12.0%”

    Cory, I thought there was property tax reductions in this plan. Local need is property taxes, right? So why is it going up?

  2. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-08 13:29

    Sibby, pay attention: “local need” is the total general fund amount that the formula calculates the schools need to operate. “State aid” is the amount the state kicks in toward local need. “Local effort” is the amount the local district is expected to raise through property taxes.

  3. Oldhag 2016-03-08 14:13

    If we follow this research these actions make more sense:”Now this game of Monopoly can be used as a metaphor for understanding society and its hierarchical structure, wherein some people have a lot of wealth and a lot of status, and a lot of people don’t. They have a lot less wealth and a lot less status and a lot less access to valued resources. And what my colleagues and I for the last seven years have been doing is studying the effects of these kinds of hierarchies. What we’ve been finding across dozens of studies and thousands of participants across this country is that as a person’s levels of wealth increase, their feelings of compassion and empathy go down, and their feelings of entitlement, of deservingness, and their ideology of self-interest increases. In surveys, we found that it’s actually wealthier individuals who are more likely to moralize greed being good, and that the pursuit of self-interest is favorable and moral. Now what I want to do today is talk about some of the implications of this ideology self-interest, talk about why we should care about those implications, and end with what might be done.”
    It’s a good listen to try to understand such poor behavior, http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_piff_does_money_make_you_mean

    “And we were really interested in who’s more likely to offer help to another person, someone who’s rich or someone who’s poor. In one of the studies, we bring in rich and poor members of the community into the lab and give each of them the equivalent of 10 dollars. We told the participants that they could keep these 10 dollars for themselves, or they could share a portion of it, if they wanted to, with a stranger who is totally anonymous. They’ll never meet that stranger and the stranger will never meet them. And we just monitor how much people give. Individuals who made 25,000 sometimes under 15,000 dollars a year, gave 44 percent more of their money to the stranger than did individuals making 150,000 or 200,000 dollars a year.”

  4. Darin Larson 2016-03-08 18:02

    Cory, I think there is going to be tremendous pressure on school boards to get as much bang out of these new bucks for teachers as possible. Teachers and voters will hold school boards accountable. I really don’t think mandates are necessary. They take away local control and eliminate special considerations of individual school districts. If the dollars are there from the state, schools will put them into teacher pay.

  5. Les 2016-03-08 18:11

    As I’ve stated many times, where is the guarantee?

    The teachers are being taught.

  6. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-08 19:33

    Les, Rep. Mickelson did revise Section 27 again this morning:

    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.

    I’m still trying to sort that one out. Anyone care to translate?

  7. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-08 19:36

    SB 131 now favors newer teachers over veteran teachers:

    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.

    Raises for the new folks, not for the ones with a long memory of the Legislature’s neglect of K-12 education?

  8. Darin Larson 2016-03-08 19:59

    Cory, I don’t have the details, but someone must have let Mickelson in on the secret that his wording in the prior incarnation would have only required about 1/2 of the 85% go to teacher pay. The revision to Section 27 I believe fixes the problem and makes it truly 85%. Although, I don’t know that they have fixed the problem of the small school district that has a couple of senior teachers retiring and replacing them with new teachers. When these more experienced teachers who are higher on the pay scale retire, the average teacher pay in the small school will go down and could make them fall below the 85% level. I think there might be some administrative leeway on this to let a school district off if they suffer from this situation. Otherwise, if a school district loses some experienced teachers, they may have to go looking for more experienced teachers to keep the average pay high enough to meet the 85% level.

  9. 1254 2016-03-08 20:52

    Does the funding come thru the general fund budget of a district? If yes how does a district get those dollars to special educators, whose salaries are paid out of the SPED fund. Also many of the cooks ,secretaries , custodians, teacher sides are at the bottom end of the pay scale. What about them? Some of you insinuate in your questioning that scool board members might be reluctant to pass these new dollars to the teachers. This board member will not, all possible dollars will go to salaries. I will struggle with who gets what. are we to treat teachers like a union worker where each teacher is to get the same raise or do we reward effort and areas that are in need. If we are to run our schools in a business like manner, shouldn’t we push more dollars toward areas of need? Areas of high demand low supply should get more? There are many questions yet to answered on the local level. Believe me board members will spend those new dollars, if you want good professional teachers you will have to.

  10. Robbie 2016-03-08 21:32

    This is exactly why there were legislators opposing the larger bill. Doesn’t anybody thogiht it was odd a large number of the legislatures who voted no to begin with had either been in the education profession or had a number of family members that were educated. Red Flag people- they wouldn’t turn their back on their own profession or family. This is exactly what they were trying to tell everyone, but nobody would listen.
    This current bill up in its original form was not good and the numbers did not add up! This was the intention. Go to pbs and watch the video from the house floor today. The main sponsor of the bill flat out said the opposite of what she said would happen when the HB bill was presented and debated. Now districts and legislators are in a bind. All those who voted yes on the HB had a lot of owning up to do. Now might be the time to go back and THANK the representatives and senators who voted NO to begin with. They are the ones who were looking out for all SD citizens! It’s too bad we have to wait until we as educators once again take the fall for the lack of honesty.

  11. Les 2016-03-08 21:54

    I don’t believe you need anyone to answer your questions of who gets what with dollars 1254. What we need is for board members to do their job remembering they work for the children.

    If you are educating children through young adults, all should leave high school either prepared with some marketable life skills or to enter college.

  12. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-09 05:38

    I’m not going to let that counternarrative stand, Robbie. The folks who voted against HB 1182 did so because they didn’t want to vote for a tax increase to give teachers more money. Lana Greenfield especially didn’t vote against HB 1182 out of loyalty to her fellow teachers; she voted against it out of her usual blindered sloganeering conservatism.

    I see less of a lack of honesty and more of a lack of courage to do all that is needed to pay South Dakota teachers what they are worth.

  13. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-09 05:41

    Darin, I’m still puzzled. The clause Mickelson added seems to contradict the “85% of local need” clause.

  14. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-09 05:47

    1254, I hope every board members shares that commitment, and I hope every teacher and parent turns keen attention from this debate to the discussions that will take place in their local districts about how to spend the money.

    Raises for other staff—not to sound heartless, but we don’t have massive evidence of a grave support-staff shortage. We haven’t seen data showing support staff earning the lowest salaries in the nation for 30 years. The Blue Ribbon panel did not spend the summer studying support staff and did not compose a plan to address support staff needs; it focused on the problem that everyone has finally come to holler about.

    We shouldn’t wait through eleven summer studies to finally recognize a support staff shortage if there is one. But we don’t have before us the preponderance of evidence that has motivated the teacher-pay plan. If the evidence is there, let’s bring it out and solve it… but we’re going to need a new plan in addition to HB1182/SB131 to solve it.

  15. Mark Winegar 2016-03-09 06:57

    I cannot conceive any valid reason for weakening the Governor’s plan for combatting the teacher shortage. Are these people really so proud of their dismal record of supporting education? Don’t they understand the vital role public education plays in economic development? Why do the people continue to vote for these idiots? Enough rambling. If you want South Dakota to prosper you will vote for Democrats. Continue voting for the GOP and we will continue to be a welfare state that looks for every opportunity to bite the hand that feeds us.

  16. Darin Larson 2016-03-09 08:45

    Cory, I’ve not delved into the details of the bill and the amendments. I was just told by those in the know that in the rush to get Mickelson’s amendment done they did not word it correctly and so only about half of the 85% would be required to go to teacher pay. I think the new amendment fixes this so that you measure the 85% against all of the new money.

    Robbie, that is quite a revisionist history you have going there. The people that voted no against 1182 are education funding scrooges who talk one way about how they support education and then vote another way. These people belong in the dark ages not in the 21st century. They don’t really value teachers or education in this state. They have starved education funding at the same time they have grown overall state spending by leaps and bounds. These are not people to be proud of!

  17. Lana 2016-03-10 01:24

    I just got done reading your posts, Darin and Corey. Now get this straight. I was a teacher for 37 years. My friends are still teachers. Robbie is right. Why would I want to harm my own life’s profession and fellow colleagues? This was bad from the start with no promises made to fund teachers specifically. HB1182 was a tax bill that INTENDED to fund education. Now do you think that is legally specific, or are there loopholes in the wording? Not one word was mentioned about teachers. I do not do business with “intentions”. As far as the word ” education,” it could mean a million things..books, programs, in services, you name it. I am sick and tired of some people blasting my intentions. I did not like the bill; I voted against it. It picked a few winners and a lot of losers..case closed. Think what you choose. Oh and by the way, some schools are finding out that they will not be giving much of a raise at all. Why not? Because they are not getting much “new” money sent their way. This was the pre-determined design evidently. Look for forced consolidations down the road. That is the reality of these broken up bills.

  18. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-10 05:46

    I’ve had it straight from the start, Rep. Greenfield: you have consistently taken positions that would deny your fellow teachers necessary advancements in pay. You have consistently taken positions that make it sound as if pay is irrelevant to maintaining a quality teacher workforce. And in your two years and your son’s several more in Pierre, neither of you has offered concrete legislation to fix the teacher shortage. Even in this year’s debate, presented with the clear evidence of the Blue Ribbon panel, you offered no solid amendment, no solid counterplan, just resistance to progress.

    I agree that HB 1182 and SB 131 are suboptimal solutions. But you haven’t even gone as far as to acknowledge that there is a problem requiring a solution.

  19. Darin Larson 2016-03-10 06:49

    The legislature has not made education a funding priority during your time in the legislature, Rep. Greenfield. You have been a part of that and voted for the budgets that cut funding and gave miniscule funding increases to education all the while growing other areas of the budget, including state worker salaries.

    I believe you that you don’t mean to harm education in SD, but I’m not going to give you a pass because you didn’t have bad intentions. What you did weakened our educational system in South Dakota. Actions have consequences.

  20. Darin Larson 2016-03-10 07:02

    PS I don’t do business on “intentions” either. It is how you voted and the funding levels for education that you supported that matter to me.

  21. Darin Larson 2016-03-10 07:59

    This is a fascinating look into the mind of a Senator. She thinks her intentions should not be impugned because she was a teacher for 37 years. But the governor’s plan to fund a teacher pay increase, that is just “intentions” to her and those intentions can be impugned by her.

    But the governors plan, albeit not perfect, is down in black and white and headed for the governors desk to be signed. The Dark-Agers say there is no guarantee this new money will go to teacher pay. However, SB 131 requires 85% of the new money to go to teacher pay increases. They could not even trust to leave it in the hands of school boards to carry out the pay increases. It is in the law that 85% get spent on teacher salary and benefits or the school loses 50% of the new money. What more of a guarantee would we require of any funding bill?

    All this is not good enough for the Dark-Agers as I like to call them. They talk about their intentions to find money for teacher pay. But they have no alternative plan down on paper. That is not a problem for them. Their intention is to find the money under rocks and steal one-time money from trust funds. Nevermind, the first rule of the legislature is to never fund ongoing expenses with one-time money. Even if they could find the money under rocks this year, we would be right back to square one next year looking for money under rocks and robbing peter to pay paul.

    Finally, the fact that some of these same Dark-Agers are former teachers pains me to no end that they can’t understand what is happening to SD’s educational system. Maybe they can understand this: “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Matthew 6:21

  22. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-11 15:44

    “I don’t do business on intentions”—remind me to use that line. :-)

  23. grudznick 2016-03-11 16:03

    Mr. Larson, I do not think the first rule of the legislatures is to never fund ongoing spending with one time money. I do not think that at all since they repeated try to do it. It is almost as if some of them do not understand the difference. I think that saying came in when the Governor, Mr. Daugaard, did all the cuts when he was elected into office and he started saying that. I do not think Mr. Rounds or Mr. Janklow before him said it. And I am positive Messrs. Russel and Gosh have never said it.

Comments are closed.