Last updated on 2020-11-23
From the fervid imagination of Rep. Tim Goodwin—phantom teachers!
Senator Lance Russell said it best when he identified the school aid formula as a “reverse Robin Hood,” meaning you take from the poor, in this case the small rural school districts, and you give to the rich, meaning the large urban school districts. How can this even be possible? Great question.
In our District 30 schools: Wall, New Underwood, Hill City, Custer, Oelrichs, Hot Springs, and Edgemont; all were and still are forced to cut teachers. In the large school districts like Sioux Falls, they receive funds for phantom teachers. Wait a minute. Phantom meaning teachers that don’t exist? Yep! The last figure I saw was for over 80 phantom teachers in the Sioux Falls school district [Rep. Tim Goodwin (R-30/Rapid City), “Things That Still Need Work—Part 2: Let’s Tackle School Aid Formula for K-12,” legislator blog, 2019.04.15].
“Phantom teachers” may have been coined by Goodwin’s fellow arch-conservative and former legislator Betty Olson, who used the term in 2016 to describe the new K-12 funding formula, which she called, “one of the worst of the governor’s education bills“:
This bill, more than any other creates winners and losers. It sweeps local “other funds” that were outside the formula, brings them into the formula and redistributes them across the state. It is very much weighted to the advantage of the larger schools. In the aggregate, it robs from the small, rural districts and gives to the large, urban districts. Teachers in the small, rural districts will be paid at the ratio set by this bill instead of by the number of teachers actually employed in that district.
Rural schools will lose money because they have more teachers than the state ratio, but large schools will get paid for phantom teachers. Get this – the 1,486 teachers in Sioux Falls will receive extra money for 71 additional teachers that don’t exist. Aberdeen will get paid for 26 non-existent teachers, Brandon Valley gets paid for 35 teachers they don’t have, and Pierre and Huron will each receive money for 21 more teachers than they actually employ. Meanwhile, teachers in small school districts will only receive money for the ratio of teachers set by the state, not for the actual number employed [Sen. Betty Olson (R-28/Prairie City), “District 28 Legislative Report,” Adams County Record, 2016.03.18].
Like Olson, Goodwin exaggerates the situation to make it sound as if some fraud is taking place. Then-Governor Dennis Daugaard convinced the 2016 Legislature to support raising teacher pay by imposing a new K-12 funding formula based on a target student-teacher ratio. That ratio is 12 for school districts with 200 or fewer kids, 15 for districts with 600 or more kids, and a scaled figure in between for districts with enrollment between 200 and 600 (see SDCL 13-13-10.1 for the details). The formula figures the number of teachers a district “should” have by dividing the number of enrolled students by that target student-teacher ratio, then provides enough state aid to give each of that target number of teachers the target salary set by the formula (rising 2.5% in FY2020 to $50,360.26).
School districts are not required to hire the number of teachers the formula says they “should” have. If districts choose to hire more teachers, they have to divvy up the state aid into lower salaries. If districts choose to hire fewer teachers, they can divvy that state aid into higher salaries.
Rep. Goodwin also may be exaggerating his numbers. When I look at the data for the 2018 school year (the Department of Education doesn’t appear to have data on the number of teachers per district in the current school year), I see that the state calculated the target number of teachers for the Sioux Falls district as 1,623.95 (that counts the straight teacher calculation as outlined above plus the allowance the formula makes for extra staff to teach kids with “limited English proficiency”). The DOE Statistical Digest says the Sioux Falls district employed 1,620.5 instructional FTEs in FY2018. I invite other statistical observations to tell me how Goodwin gets to 80 “phantom” teachers, but the numbers I’m looking at don’t support his assertion that Sioux Falls is somehow cheating the system.
Besides, even if Sioux Falls is employing 80 fewer teachers than the formula envisions, the district is only living up to exactly the intent of the formula. Governor Daugaard predicated his 2016 formula overhaul on his contention that South Dakota employs too many teachers. Goodwin apparently wants to punish Sioux Falls for following the letter and spirit of the law. Instead of raising taxes to pay for inherently less labor-efficient smaller schools, arch-conservative Goodwin just wants to rob urban districts and shift money to rural schools.
Rep. Goodwin reports that interim Education Secretary Ben Jones is visiting the Hill City School District next week Tuesday, April 23, at 2:30 p.m. MDT, “to try and [sic] get a handle on this very unfair formula. He plans on attending all the other schools in our district, so hopefully we have an ally in Sec. Jones.” Of course, at best, they’ll only have that “ally” for a few more weeks, as Dr. Jones is supposed to go back to DSU in May.
And if Goodwin is trying to make Dr. Jones an ally, Goodwin should probably stifle his talk of leaving Dr. Jones without a job post-Secretariat:
My last thoughts on K-12 turns to our state-funded universities. We currently have six universities. (Don’t call them colleges. I guess that’s an insult.)…
None of these universities, since statehood, have been consolidated. One example: the university in Brookings is only 35 miles from the university in Madison. Hmmm. Think about it. I’d better stop here before my email explodes! [Goodwin, 2019.04.15]
Once again, Goodwin preaches the scarcity mentality: instead of looking for ways to invest more in our public goods, Goodwin just wants to hack away at what we have.
I will grant that increasing pressure on small schools to shed teachers and consolidate is a feature, not a bug, in the Daugaard Blue Ribbon funding formula. I will welcome serious conversations about the state’s ability to fund those smaller schools adequately so every child enjoys equal educational opportunity. But Goodwin isn’t proposing a legislatively viable alternative, not when a majority of legislators represent the three largest school districts in the state, the districts whose funding Goodwin wants to lower for the sake of smaller schools.
Oh well. You have that conversation, Tim, about cutting funds for the urban districts and taking a university or two away from other key districts, and see how many allies that wins you.
Rep. Goodwin is correct, the new formula favors large schools. I wrote a legislative report in my small town papers about all the phantom teachers that would be funded in large schools at the expense of my small schools in district 04. All but one of my schools had fewer teachers funded because enrollments weren’t large enough to fill every classroom to capacity. The loss of outside the formula dollars cost many rural schools heavily, Deubrook will loose over 400,000 thousand from the loss of wind generation dollars when the five year step down period of funding for wind dollars is over. The rural schools had to make up funding by increasing property taxes made available by allowing schools to use forty-five percent of capitol outlay dollars for any school expense. This was a really great example of the power of having a majority of Legislators representing your schools.
When the new formula was passed it appeared Sioux Falls would get funding for 60 more teachers than were employed and Watertown would get funding for 20 more than employed, if I remember correctly. These we labeled “phantom teachers “.
Jim, why was it right/fair to have “outside the formula dollars?” Because you have windmills, your students get to have more education opportunity? My understanding was that the state funding base number was to to up to incorporate (and distribute) those extra funds — not that they would be eliminated with no replenishment. Am I wrong in that?
The only “phantoms” I am aware of are when student attendance is averaged, and the state gave money to schools with declining enrollment for 1/2 the students no longer there to help smaller schools even out population swings.
Sioux Falls is having budget issues right now because they were double counting the amount of students in certain categories. That’s why the budget meetings recently and teachers on the chopping block here. No “phantom” teachers here, just students.
I know you’ll ask how I know and that information cannot be given but it is true. Assistant Superintendent in charge of FTE and numbers messed up.
The Janklow formula* in place before the current formula was based originally on the assumption that all students were the same for funding purposes. It ran into the reality that not all students are the same. Costs to educate individual students vary. The biggest factor in the cost difference is the student-teacher ratio in the school. Another factor is the amount of individual attention a student requires. The Janklow formula needed constant amendment, and there were fixes for small schools, etc., over the years to make it work
In contrast, the formula in place before the Janklow formula was criticized as an “expense-driven formula.” Local demand out-paced state funding leading to property tax increases that were thought to be unsustainable. Those tax increases led to a property tax rebellion.
The current education funding system is just a rejiggered Janklow formula which takes the student out, while putting a state determined student/teacher ratio in. It will either end up with inadequate small schools, consolidation, or, more likely, fixes to the formula, as happened with the Janklow formula.
You can make any formula work if you put adequate resources behind it. The real problem has been that state government doesn’t have adequate resources to make anything work well. South Dakota fails to tax high income people, so student education is never going to be adequately funded with whatever formula is used. What you end up with is screwing the large schools or screwing the small schools. What you really are doing is screwing each individual student.
*The Janklow formula was the result of several states’ efforts to solve the “property tax rebellion” in the late 80s and early 90s, as well as to tamp down lawsuits challenging the fairness and adequacy of education in these states. Wisconsin, Oregon and South Dakota borrowed ideas from each other to come up with similar systems.
We spend more money on education than any other country. How much more is enough in your minds? Why is “money” always the answer? We spend over 21 trillion on the war on poverty yet we have more in poverty. We spend over 51% more per student than the other countries in the research done.
The U.S. is one of the top spenders per FTE, but tax dollars make up about 70 percent of the cost with private donations making up the rest. In terms of the percentage of Gross National Product, the U.S. ranks 61st at 5.22 percent.
https://en.actualitix.com/country/wld/expenditure-on-education-in-the-world.php
Steve, your 51% is high, it is more like 30%, but your use of average covers up more than it reveals. The US is not the highest spender on education: Several countries outspent the U.S. on elementary and secondary education, including Switzerland, Norway and Luxembourg, which spent $21,595 per full-time student in 2014. When we speak of who is doing education right in the world, Norway often is the model. I also think you have to look at the nations below us – are they attempting to create-support a middle class, or have they given up on ever addressing income inequality: the killer of national economies.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country-spends-most-education.asp
I also think you ignore the investment aspect of education. Having a well-educated workforce means that businesses save on training expenses (especially vocational training) and communities benefit from a better earning tax base.
If there are that many it is probably a big enough sample to do a study on where Phantom Teachers fall in comparison to Human Teachers on the SILT scale. If 60 of the 80 Phantoms fall into the top two of the Seven Indisputable Levels of Teacher (very good and excellent), that 75% would far outstrip the 10-20% of human teachers who fall into those two categories. Or, conversely, perhaps 100% of the Phantoms are in the bottom level of SILT. That would make more sense.
Steven Pearson,
It’s not that money is the answer. It’s what money can buy that’s the answer. Money is required to pay teachers, staff, loans for building, maintenance, technology and curriculum, etc., etc.
And double counting happens at the state level, too. The Janklow formula, and the current one since it is based on the Janklow formula, are not simply a formula for funding education. It has been a means to redistribute state tax dollars not just to equalize education across the state, which was the intended purpose of state aid to education, but to provide property tax relief/reduction and to hold down spending on education. Janklow double counted the additional money he provided in the 1990s, claiming it all went to education, but about half the money actually went to fill the hole he created by the property tax capping mechanism. Thus, it was property tax relief, not education dollars.
Wingnuts in every state are stealing tax payer dollars and illeglly giving them as vouchers to private and religious schools, on the misguided/debunked notion these schools educate better than public schools. Starving public education, which is guaranteed to every student, and feeding for profit schools has done nothing to improve education in either system.
https://www.sheilakennedy.net/2019/04/if-evidence-mattered-4/
What’s is always absent from talks about education, specifically public education are the things that truly matter…Teachers in Sioux Falls and teachers statewide are underpaid fininacy and undervalued socially. My mom and brother both are educators in the SF public school system. I’ll ask them about “phantom teacher” phenomenon, but pretty sure that’s not a thing. We live in a state where public education isn’t a priority. This is reflected in the rhetoric that attacks school funding, attacks teacher pay or in anyway denigrates the public school system. Teachers aren’t perfect and some of the administrators are dicks, but this is just silly.
Emily Comer and Jay O’Neal are two of Times’ 100. They are young teachers who led strikes in the recent past . Dolores Huerta explains why they are on the list:
“One teacher can change a young person’s life, giving them the confidence to pursue their biggest goals. But in the past year, teachers have left an impact well beyond their classrooms, launching a social-justice movement that was impossible to ignore.
“Teachers are the foundation of our democracy. They’re the conscience of our society. When teachers stand up for themselves—as Jay O’Neal and Emily Comer did in West Virginia, and as others have since done in Oklahoma, Arizona, California and beyond—it is a message to all of us. If teachers are standing up, you can stand up.
“The only way to stop hatred and division in our country is through education, and that requires investing in our teachers. These strikes have been a wake-up call about the lack of education funding and the wage crisis that exists across industries today. It can be hard for teachers to get civically engaged, but if more did, I think we would have an entirely different society.”
I remember when persons in positions of authority needed to substantiate their claims with hard proof. If and when Rep Goodwin produces facts to support his claims, we should have a conversation. Until then, it’s just smoke.
Other commenters above note that support for all K-12 public education is insufficient, but I’m guessing that is not why Goodwin voted “No” on the General Bill for education funding (and myriad other functions). His insight can be valuable, but to borrow from the title of Mr. Goodwin’s piece, his thesis is among the “Things That Still Need Work”.
South Dakota has 2000 fewer farms than the last time they counted farms. The depopulating quickly continues and so should / must the school and school district consolidations.
Until the rural areas come up with a better business model to grow rural populations, there is little need to commit excess resources to schools that need to consolidate or close.
Closing schools pushes further depopulation, but district consolidation pushes more resources down to the school level.
Wasn’t there a university in Springfield?
Oh! Good point, Dandy!
Southern State College Pointers. My cousin went to school there for one semester in 1971, I think. Their student union nickname was the Kennel. So what did they eat in the Kennel? 🙄🙄🙄
(What were they thinking when they decided Kennel was a good nickname?)
Didn’t it serve as USD-Springfield for a few years before Janklow transformed it into a prison around1985?
Pearson’s claim is based on a statement he refuses to substantiate. I tire of people claiming to have special inside knowledge but refusing to prove their claim with real evidene. Such self-aggrandizement distracts from the real policy debate. Bring real numbers, or keep quiet.
Donald correctly points out that the current formula is still a per-student formula, just like Janklow’s. Schools still get their dollars based on how many students they have, and they still get more money per student if they are smaller schools.
David, O, thank you both for providing real statistics that put the lie to Steve’s offhanded and incorrect assertion. Steve seems to argue a lot like Goodwin, making claims that make him feel good about his worldview without evidence to back them up. I share Curt’s desire to see real data showing “phantom teachers” in Sioux Falls.
Correct, Debbo. USD-Springfield was a teaching and vocational college… hmm… which makes me wonder if the advent of the vo-techs created friction with the Regents. Were the overlapping programs at Springfield and the vo-techs?
USD-Springfield was about the size of my current employer, Presentation College, when Janklow shut it down.
When it was Southern State it was a little bigger, but SSC, Mount Marty Lancers and Yankton College Greyhounds were all about the same size in the 1970s. My guess is they had around 500 students? That’s undergrad. I don’t know if they offered graduate degrees. All 3 had fairly crappy facilities at that time too. Is there still a Mount Marty in Yankton or Watertown or anywhere?
Debbo – Not sure whether it’s good news or bad but Mt. Marty is still granting college credits and conferring degrees.
Thanks Curt.