On October 28, Governor Dennis Daugaard issued a press release stating that his Blue Ribbon sales tax increase and new school funding formula has raised South Dakota’s average teacher pay 11.9% over last year’s average to $46,924.
Hey, didn’t we add a half-penny to our sales tax under the promise that directing $67 million in new sales tax revenue toward out schools would raise teacher pay to the statutory target of $48,500?
The Legislature set a “target average salary” of $48,500 for teachers. We knew that we would not reach that average in the first year, because it will take time for schools to become more efficient and repurpose their own funds into salaries. I am very pleased that, with an average salary of nearly $47,000, our schools have made so much progress toward that goal [Governor Dennis Daugaard, press release, 2016.10.28].
The Governor here continues the spin line that evolved this summer when it became clear that few if any schools were going to reach that target, even though the funding formula enacted in 2016 Senate Bill 131 makes clear that $48,500 is the target teacher salary for this school year and that “Each school fiscal year thereafter, the target teacher salary is the previous fiscal year’s target teacher salary increased by the index factor.” Reaching $48,500 next year or a few years from now doesn’t cut the mustard, because that leaves us playing catch-up with an average that will go up by the lesser of CPI or 3% every year. If we use the current annual CPI listed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the target average salary for the 2018 school year will rise 1.6% to $49,276.
The Department of Education yesterday released the preliminary survey data on which the Governor based his celebratory October 28 claim.
Out of 150 school districts, DOE estimates 15 have reached the target salary (Douglass, Oglala Lakota, Eagle Butte, Mitchell, Brandon Valley, Rapid City, Sioux Falls, Watertown, Yankton, Oelrichs, Dakota Valley, Aberdeen, Dupree, Tri-Valley, and Huron). 39 school districts remain below last year’s average teacher salary of $41,940.
Reaching the Governor’s target average salary this year would have required raising every teacher salary by $6,560. Only 25 schools gave average raises that big.
Reaching that average for the target number of teachers specified by the Governor’s target student-teacher ratios (roughly 9,070 teachers) would have required $59.5 million… $7.5 million less than the new sales tax was supposed to send to the schools.
The sales tax promised more than enough money to reach the statewide target average teacher salary. Why aren’t we there?
Note that DOE’s data are preliminary and based on staffing levels from last year. They don’t have this year’s staffing levels. I’m conducting my own survey of schools to get actual full-time equivalents on the job this year. Currently I have data from 112 school districts teaching 77% of the current K-12 student population with 7,430.69 teacher FTEs.
Recall that a key and contentious part of the Governor’s Blue Ribbon plan was the new funding formula based on a sliding scale of ideal student/teacher ratios, from 12 in school districts with 200 students or fewer to 15 in school districts with 600 students or more.
Applying this formula to the 112 school districts that have sent me data so far and their current fall enrollments, I find the Governor’s formula expected those school districts to shed 361.69 FTEs from last year. Instead, while 36 of those districts cut teachers, 52 added teachers. Those 112 school districts added a net 106.98 FTEs. Instead of cutting staff 4.9%, they boosted staff 1.5%.
The 112 schools in my survey raised their average teacher salary from $41,780 to $46,642. They have 7,430.69 teacher FTEs. Had they all followed the Governor’s recommended staffing levels, they’d have 6,962.02 FTEs. At those staffing levels, their average teacher salary could have been $49,782.
So why are we failing to reach the target average teacher salary? We can phrase the conclusion from these data two ways:
- The Governor’s target student-teacher ratio formula misunderstands the needs local districts see for staffing levels.
- Local districts are prioritizing hiring more staff (perhaps to restore programs cut by the Daugaard austerity) over reaching regionally competitive wages.
Every South Dakota school district in my survey is paying teachers more, with increases in their average pay ranging from $1,740 at Northwestern to $9,969 at Mobridge-Pollock. But given a big boost in revenue, these 112 school districts have chosen to put about 60% of the new money available toward raising teacher pay and 40% of the money available toward hiring more teachers.
Your analysis is spot on. I would be interested in how many schools are staffing beyond the recommended ratio–and not necessarily adding staff–to meet the needs of their districts. Schools have unique situations, and program requirements such as Title I and Special Education and colonies that need to be staffed. I’m not sure that a ratio based on simple math–and had no educational research or logic behind it–truly meets the needs of our students. I appreciate your efforts in getting this information. Thank you.
Good point, Gail! The figures I report are net: in those 112 schools, there are 107 more FTEs than there were last year. Of the 112 schools that have sent me their data so far, 94 were over-formula in FY2016 and 18 were under formula (if the formula had been in effect). This year, by final fall 2016 enrollment, 91 schools are over formula and 21 are under formula.
But (here’s the wonkiest thing I’ve said all day) 47 schools increased their deviation from formula this year, while 65 school reduced their deviation from formula. The sample-wide over-formula rose from 464.40 in FY2016 to 468.67 this year. Given student enrollment growth at the sample schools, the formula allowed 1.50% FTE growth. Actual FTEs increased 1.46%.
Given the number of immigrants that Chamber members in Ag GOED benificiaries and Tourism bring in to SD, how many of these positions were to hire more ESL teachers?
How many were brought in to teach kids with special needs like Pat Powers has fought for?
How many were hired to counsel the homeless created by the Daugaard economy?
How many were hired to train low cost labor vs. knowledge workers?
Just wondering.
Thanks, again. Good information to have as we approach another legislative session. I’m quite certain the amputations–or death by 1,000 cuts to small schools–will continue.
English as second language equals ESL
Governor’s office of economic development equals GOED
Cory: I appreciate the information you present. One question: of the 15 school districts which have “reached the target salary”, how many were at that salary or beyond prior? I know of several of the districts that had an average salary above the target salary two years ago. Reason: experienced staff.
Paladn, good question. Of the 15 target-makers on the DOE list, only Douglas was above target in FY2016 ($49,535). Were “several” districts really above $48,500 in FY2015? Was there that much staff turnover at those schools?
It’s also interesting to note that the “woe is me” attitude is starting now that a new legislative session is nearing. “We don’t have enough to spend on this, we don’t have enough money to spend on that.” Yet, for the past five years, after each legislative session, there has been several millions of dollars reported as surplus. I understand that there are certain restrictions to these surplus funds, but the bottom line is that this surplus is always proudly reported each year, and then ignored when they talk about not having enough. Which is it? Googling SD Surplus funding makes an interesting read.
For further information, the surplus funding totals I’m talking about are: Budget Reserve $113,379,805 and General Fund Replacement Fund $44,000.048.
It should be noted that rcas is utilizing capital outlay flexibility for staff salaries as well.
Interesting: so the sales tax revenue alone is even less effective at reaching the target salary?