The Legislature is showing no mercy to Kristi Noem and Ben Jones. In apparent recognition of the Governor and her Education Secretary’s failure to drive academic success, the Government Operations and Audit Committee has appointed a cabal of Sioux Falls conservatives to take “partial control” of the Department of Education:
Representative Sue Peterson, a Sioux Falls Republican, will run it. She is vice-chair of GOAC.
Joining her are Representative Chris Karr, a Sioux Falls Republican; Senator Jack Kolbeck, a Sioux Falls Republican; and Representative Shawn Bordeaux, a Mission Democrat [Bob Mercer, “Legislator Oversight Panel Plans to Keep Watch on S.D. Education Department Through Session,” KELO-TV, 2019.11.04].
Sue Peterson in charge of public education? Uh oh!
Rep. Karr e-mailed Mercer a detailed explanation for GOAC’s partial takeover of the Department—essentially, a vote of no-confidence in the Noem Administration to do anything to improve student test scores:
…From 2015 to budgeted 2020, the Department of Education budget has increased $200 million yet test results have shown no significant improvement. Therefore the committee felt it had an obligation according to state law (SDCL 2-6-2), to tax payers, students and parents to take a deeper look into both the financial and programmatic areas of the Department of Education.
In 2013, the Secretary of Education presented a plan to the JCA for major reform in education and repeated the message/request in numerous presentations that the JCA and the Legislature hold the Department accountable. I do not believe that the performance of the DOE is acceptable by anyone’s standards and further believe that the DOE should be striving to do better. It is staggering to look at the results of the past six years and the very low standards set for the next 5-10 years….
The DOE has been failing to meet acceptable performance measures. At this time there is no reason to expect different results – the report provided still has the same sub-standard 5 year and 10 year goals. If we want different results, then there needs to be fundamental change. By bringing in a third party that is an expert in the subject matter, it is the goal to identify root-causes of the low performance and also identify a plan that will result in performance measures that South Dakota can be proud of [Rep. Chris Karr, e-mail to Bob Mercer, in Mercer, 2019.11.04].
As Karr says, the Legislature saw these allegedly bad test scores racking up for years. The Legislature also kept approving the DoE budget increases that Rep. Peterson believes should result in higher test scores. But Karr, Peterson, and GOAC never jerked Governor Daugaard’s chain like this.
If the feckless Noem Administration can get the Legislature to reassert its authority over the budget and demand accountability from an Education Department that for too long has given cronies free rein with public dollars, then the election of Kristi Noem may not have been for naught. And aspirants for 2022 should take this action as a sign of growing discontent with a failing Governor who may not withstand a primary or general election challenge.
But we shouldn’t expect the public-school-hating Sue Peterson to come up with any better plans to improve learning in our classrooms. Her GOAC sub-cabal will set some arbitrary test standards not much better than DoE’s, and when the schools inevitably fail to reach those standards, Peterson and pals will use that as an excuse to slash funding for our public K-12 system and divert our tax dollars to stealth vouchers, home school, and other preferred means of theocratic indoctrination.
Oh, boy. Here we go again, but at least they are focusing on someone other than teachers and districts this time. Still, it’s wasted effort, and in 5-8 years it will show its “failure” as well.
I’ve stated this over and over over the decades, but here I go again. Every 5-8 in South Dakota there is a major conniption over “test scores” not making enough “improvement.” There comes the search for boogeymen. There comes a lot of threats and demands for change. There comes some pet ideas that get enacted. Then 5-8 years later, repeat.
First, “test scores” on such a gross average level will never improve. It’s simple statistics. The “problem” with education is a forty-year long line of Governors and Legislators who didn’t and don’t have a basic understanding of statistics. They think these averaged scores mean something. What is needed is not this constant overreaction to averaged test scores.
Here’s a little statistical truth. Average scores over the state or district aren’t going to “improve” hardly at all, nor are they going to decrease much from year to year. From year to year you aren’t even comparing the same population of students in grades 3, 8 and 11, or whatever grades you are testing. Small districts are going to have averaged scores that vary more than larger districts. It’s just statistics.
What counts and what would make a difference is a focus on individual student improvement. Throw out the averaged scores and focus on each student and what they need. It might not even be something in the classroom. It may be a vision screening or addressing a health issue that keeps a student out of class. That can never be done at the Department of Education level, but having state policies on education, health, income support and the host of issues that impact families and a focus on what each individual child needs, rather than on some statistically insignificant average scores, will make a difference.
Thank you Don Pay.
South Dakota is trying to create great students from kids whose parents weren’t even good students. The best and brightest have moved away for seventy five years and what’s left? A depleted gene pool of intelligence. It used to be that lots of people from Minnesota or Texas moved in, with smart kids. That helped the test scores. With a one party system, offering no diversity, people will quit their companies before they allow themselves to be transferred to SD.
That’s interesting about stats. Thanks Don.
Is Sue Peterson South Dakota’s Betsy Devoid of All Humanity? The GOP has been working hard at destroying public education for 40 years or so. Rebuilding will take time and a ground up effort.
If you want better schools, elect Democrats, and not just once or to one office. The rebuilding job is huge and will take time. Give it to Democrats for good schools for your children.
I agree with Donald that the new sub-GOAC is barking up the wrong statistical tree.
I also see some sense in Porter’s charge that South Dakota is reaping what it has sown. Recall this year’s study on brain drain, cited first by John Tsitrian, then given more ink in August by SD News Watch: we are losing highly educated residents at a higher rate than other states. That means fewer highly educated parents, and better educated parents are a strong predictor of better educational outcomes among kids.
We’re climbing a demographic hill against a Legislature that wages active war on the public good. The best thing the sub-GOACers could do to improve overall academic achievement in this state would be to lose to Democrats next year.
People need to use the data in more innovative ways. Standardized tests aren’t all bad, and they do provide data that can be used to test out where problems start. But you can’t even get to the interesting stuff if you are concerned with average scores.
I was able to partly disaggregate longitudinal data of cohorts as they went through the Rapid City district. This was using data from standardized test from the early 1990s to 2000. By that time there was enough data to follow one cohort from 4th grade through 11th grade and several from 4th to 8th and 8th to 11th. I separated students into subgroups: Academic Stars, Bright Students, Average Students and Poor Students. There had been an observed decline in student scores from 8th grade to 11th grade, and people were trying to figure out what the problem was. This was true in nearly all districts, not just in Rapid City. We know that the transition to high school is a perilous time for many students, particularly those who haven’t done well in middle school, but I think I found a different issue by looking at the data.
To cut to the chase, Academic Stars seemed to carry high scores all the way through from 4th to 8th to 11th grade, even getting better scores in high school. Average Students seemed to carry average scores all the way through as well, with a slight decline by 11th grade from what they scored in tests in 4th and 8th grade. Poor Students seemed locked into poor scores, though these students tended to be truant and drop out in higher numbers. Almost the entire decline in Rapid City students scores from 8th to 11th grade was due to the Bright Students, those who were smart but not in the top 7-10 percent of scores on standardized tests.
Here was my analysis. The Academic Stars were advise by parents, counselors and teachers to take advanced classes and load up their schedules to accelerate their coursework. Most of the Bright Students were not, and so did not challenge themselves academically. They seemed to slide through school. Most Bright Students were in courses that did not challenge them up to their abilities and did not cover as much material, resulting in less material learned, leading to sliding scores. Many could get As and Bs in the non-advanced classes without applying themselves, so they studied to get by, not to learn material.
My conclusion was that Rapid City schools weren’t reaching many of the Bright Students who would have benefited by joining the Academic Stars in the honors or AP programs. What they needed was a bigger push from teachers and counselors to challenge that sub-group a bit more by accelerating learning.
That seems like a sound analysis of the 2 higher achieving levels Don. I’d guess the Average students could have been just that, average in intellect.
Of course the Poor Students require greater resources. Some will remain in the Poor category due to insurmountable biological limitations. There is a reason the rest of the Poor Students are in that category.
To me, the test of a real first rate school is not limited to maintaining or increasing the academic levels of the top 2 categories. Can that school bring the majority of Poor Students up at least one level? Can it meet the challenges of the reasons those children are Poor Students?
Schools/communities that are able to accomplish that goal are truly Elite Institutions of Learning. It does require a community effort.
Don and Debbo – excellent analysis 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I think schools serve the “Average Student” best. The curriculum is geared to that big chunk of kids in the middle. The pace of instruction seems geared to students who require more repetition than the really smart kids. It takes more resources to serve the “Academic Stars” and the “Poor Students” (By “Poor” I don’t bean economically poor.)
I came to see that, outside of giving a window into what might be happening in Rapid City schools, it’s a disservice to the kids to lump them into these groups, because every one of them is an individual with different needs, motivators, etc. Each child has different skills and intellect. Sometimes it’s not a matter of IQ, but of other factors, sometimes outside the control of the student, and have nothing to do with IQ.
Standardized test scores for me are an inadequate measure of progress. I worked at Pearson, where it became apparent that test scores, not achievement would be used to leverage more money from government.
The education system needs to value family togetherness.
It should better understand the singularity.
It should focus on Computer Science like it focuses on English.
The entire system needs an overhaul that reinstalls conservative and conservationist values with the help of modern technology.
But when students become more savvy about the systems used to spy and exploit, the system gets nervous.
Get the wireless out of schools or let students smoke in the bathrooms .. Both are nasty.
GOAC Education Subcommittee to meet December 2 in Pierre. The agenda indicates they are acting on a request for proposal, which is not further explained in the agenda. Any RFP will cost money. I question whether this notice is adequate for an open meeting notice. Without knowing what the proposed RFP entails it is impossible for the public to know what is transpiring in the meeting and what money will be spent on. I think they should postpone the meeting, notice it properly and assure notice to the public is legal by more fully describing what the Request For Proposal is for.
http://sdlegislature.gov/docs/Interim/2019/agendas/A12022019.pdf
When did they post it, Mr. Pay? Open meetings requires a 72.5 hour notice, not including legal holidays or the days of Sunday and Saturday, however the Council of Research for the Legislatures does not have to follow those rules. They can do what they want, and the GOAC is above even their laws. The RFP is probably to research the Gear Ups contracts and state employees involved, as this meeting could be Mr. Nelson’s last chance to pound the tables on this issue.
Grudz, I’m not sure when they posted it, but, you know, posting notice of an RFP without any explanation of what the RFP is seems rather slimy, if not totally illegal. You have guessed as to what this is. I highly doubt its about GEARUP. Whatever they are RFP-ing it isn’t going to be about some stuff they bungled years ago. It is more likely something they want little, if any public input on, and it’s probably a done deal with some outfit they already as much as selected. The meeting is Monday at 8:00 after a holiday. You don’t do that unless you want to have as little public input and press coverage as possible.
Donald, I checked the state’s RFP register and the pending RFPs, and nothing leaps out as a product of GOAC’s doing in education. However, is it possible that their agenda item is about writing up and issuing the RFP? Are they intervening in some standing DOE RFP?
Cory, Good questions. I don’t know what they are doing, but whatever it is it appears to be on the down low. What is it they need that they can’t get from LRC or the Department of Education? It seems it’s starting out as a waste of taxpayer money. Also, it just seems rather a strange way of operating if they want public input. There’s absolutely no transparency. Why not say what the RFP is meant to do in the public notice? It makes no sense unless they are (1) clueless or (2) hiding something.
1890 – I’ve seen evidence of the LGBTQ agenda being promulgated through after school activities.
I doubt this is the focus of the meeting (could it be?) .. although, parents don’t want their kids to become the next chemically castrated 5 year old like that poor little boy in TX with the insane mother.
Obviously, schools are THE ONLY TARGET that matters for anyone on any side that wants to nudge the culture.
1 – lower wages, force both parents to work too much
2 – pervade the community with meth, create paranoid sociopaths out of the parents
3 – send the kids to school, after school programs
4 – define whatever curriculum you want to takeover the nation .. it’s yours
I think I’m going to submit a proposal for 1890 .. of course, I’m conservative so I probably have no chance whatsoever of being awarded. But that’s liberating in a way .. I don’t have to lie on the RFP. I can be 100% honest. Want me to review it on my radio program if/when it’s done?