This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Our leaders in Pierre have managed to find four millon dollars to pour into increased teacher pay. Get out your envelopes and pencils: $4,000,000, divided evenly among about 9000 teachers, that's about $440 per teacher. That raise would bring South Dakota's average teacher pay to $34,500, still $2100 less than the average teacher pay in Mississippi, still rock bottom nationwide. (Have math fun of your own: play with the NEA's Education Statistics!)
I know, HB 1171 just creates a pilot project, and surely the state will find more money for the project as it proves its worth. But read the fine print. This measure is not an acknowledgment that South Dakota doesn't pay its teachers enough. This pilot project will not simply reward teachers something closer to the pay they deserve for the hard work they already do. There will be no across-the-board increases (so the above calculations only apply to determining the statewide average impact, not the actual benefits any specific teacher will enjoy). If teachers want more money, they have to jump through more hoops, doing more projects outside the classroom to "improve education." In the eyes of the legislature, it's not enough that teachers "improve education" by busting their chops in the classroom, the theater, or the gym. They have to do more, which, if I know my administration, will probably take the form of vacuous "graduate" classes in education and conferences that will take away from contact time with students.
Now let me be clear: an employer paying a fair wage has a right to ask employees to do more work to earn more pay. This legislation establishes clearly that our legislators think that, for the work they do right now, teachers deserve $2500 less than their counterparts in North Dakota, $5000 less than their counterparts in Iowa, and $13,000 less than their counterparts in Minnesota. (It shouldn't be hard to figure out why Sioux Falls has trouble recruiting qualified teachers.)
RIP Quincy Jones
-
Probably one of the greatest music producers EVER! I have to tell you, I
have been beside myself, I get it, he was old, but everything you listened
to deca...
5 hours ago
Cory:
ReplyDeleteimmediate action can be taken right now in your own local community. Opt Out!
If you can't press your case to the whole legislature, then make the case first and foremost to the local community where you live.
The legislature is not a panacea for educational improvement. Local communities have the tools to improve education immediately.
So, instead of a new gym, rec center, theater and auditorium...or instead of a 3 million dollar bond issue which goes to a construction company, pass an opt out to pay more to teachers.
But, I have a sneaking suspicion that many on the left are opposed to increasing local property taxes. I have yet to find locals who want to raise thier own taxes but are more than willing to blow up the state budget.
Here's the deal, you will get buy in from the legislature only after local communities start to support their local schools by ponying up first.
It's very telling when local communities won't support their schools by putting their money where their mouths are.
Further, how much money should teachers in South Dakota make? I never see a dollar figure thrown out there. I only see comparisons with other states. State's that have little in common with SD economically, politically, or in terms of businesses infrastructure.
Hi, Anonymous!
ReplyDeleteBelieve me, I'm trying to make the case to my community. As you are aware from other posts here, I'm facing a tax increase of $89 (actually, we just got our new assessment, so our additional burden for this bond issue would be near $120) just to pay for a new gym. A farmer friend of mine would pay an additional $1500 a year to fund the gym. We'd both rather see that money go toward the people doing the actual work of education, and we hope to persuade our neighbors to vote accordingly. I'd rather see my tax dollars go for higher teacher pay than any sort of facility improvement, including my suggested arts complex.
Opt out? Madison already has. So have 67 other school districts large and small across the state, from Sioux Falls down to Wood. That's a lot of districts saying the state funding formula doesn't get the job done.
But education is more than a local issue. The state isn't simply doing us a favor by chipping in for education; it's fulfilling a constitutional obligation and providing a service that benefits the entire state and nation. I'm a firm believer in keeping things local whenever possible, but we have an obligation as a statewide community to help everyone in this state get a quality education and to pay the teachers who are willing to take on that task a competitive wage.
You're right: it is hard to figure out how much a teacher or any worker should be paid. Converting human work into dollars is as tricky as turning students' intellectual efforts into grade-point averages. You want a number? Hey, I'll take $2500 more to bring up to parity with North Dakota's teachers. (See the last paragraph of my original post.) That's the next best bargain for teacher salaries you'll get in this region. Cross the border in any other direction, and you find teachers facing similar student demographics and costs of living earning more than South Dakota's teachers:
Minnesota average: $46,906
Wyoming: $40,497
Nebraska: $39,456
Iowa: $39,284
Montana: $38,485
North Dakota: $36,395
South Dakota: $34,040
(full list at NEA)
As the article linked in the last paragraph of the original post indicates, whatever the right dollar figure is for teacher salaries is, South Dakota is below it. That's why Sioux Falls is having trouble recruiting teachers. That's why the business leaders quoted in that article want more state aid for education: without boosting salaries, we can't compete with neighboring, better-paying states to retain the good teachers. And if we can't keep teachers, we can't keep educational quality, and our ability to draw young workers to move themselves, their families, and their earning potential) to our state dwindles. Spend more on education, and the state makes money by improving its education system, drawing more out-of-state business, and producing ever more skilled workers and entrepreneurs. Education is the fuel in the economic development engine.
I won't presume to speak for all lefties, but you do have this lefty pegged: I don't approve of property tax increases. I don't approve of property tax, period. South Dakota should reform its entire tax structure and create a system that bases taxation on ability to pay. (I'm not convinced I'd have Adam Smith's vote on this one, but replacing South Dakota's property tax with an income tax would certainly better fulfill Smith's maxims of equity -- the wealthy, benefiting most from government, ought to pay taxes in greater proportion of their revenue than the rest of us -- and transparency -- taxes being certain, clear, and plain, not based on arbitrary numbers like our county assessor's magic guess as to the value of our property.)
Oops! Sorry -- in the above comment, the link I gave for the list of schools opting out is to a form at the state Ed. Dept. To get the actual list, start at DoE's StatDigest and check the "Opt Out" option to get the list.
ReplyDeleteNote also that in the Sioux Falls School District, the average teacher salary is $39,290, over $5000 better than the state average, and they still have trouble recruiting teachers. The market is speaking... is Pierre listening?
ReplyDeleteOne more oops -- I noticed the list I downloaded did not yet reflect Madison Central's opt-out. That's 69 total districts opting out, and maybe a few others not yet on the state list. I'll keep checking....
ReplyDeleteSouth Dakotans are the only people smart enough to figure out that teachers only work nine months a year. Stop complaining!
ReplyDeleteI'm joking.
There is no easier way to determine what a society values than by looking at what it spends its money on. We value inflating the cost of substandard health care and making war.
One curious fact about state aid to education. They are giving, I forget the exact amount, but say $43M this year toward K-12. Think it's somewhere around that. BUT, last year they promised X amount, of which $6M was not used and was turned back into the general fund, so in reality this year the state only is coming up with $37M. I have tried to talk to Pierre officials about this and just get flim-flamed.
ReplyDeleteI have an idea. If the state promises X amount for a given year toward K-12, that amount should remain. Period. If there are unspent funds for wahtever reason out of that X amount at the end of the fiscal year, then the left over amount either goes back to the schools on a simple per student basis, or goes as teacher bonuses on a simple per teacher basis.
In determining teacher bonuses, only whether full-time or part-time would determine the amount of the bonus. Length of time wouldn't figure in; the beginnign teachers are at the bottom of the pay scale woudl benefit most from this.
The way it is now, the state promises X, but puts unspent promised funds back into the general funds and repromises the same funds the next year. AFter a few years they don't have to come up with any new money, it's just recycled year after year. Doesn't anybody else see the hypocricy of this?
I just read the first anonymous comments. How much exactly do you pay in property taxes to support your local school district? I can tell you exactly how much I'm paying plus an opt out. The problem with "local support" is in the inequality of the support demanded from people. Another source of money needs to be found besides property taxes. Businesses and farmers pay thru the nose to fund education, and why should we pay more just because we happen to own property as a part of our means of making a living. People who don't own property might be worth a while lot more than me with their stocks, bonds, etc etc etc, but they don't have to pay a fraction of what I pay. People are waking up to the unfairness of this. And then the sports community wants to build a new gym and sock us even more, and they expect us to support them? Ha!
ReplyDeleteHello, Nonnie, and welcome!
ReplyDeleteWow, so our legislature really can make money appear out of thin air. Clever! It's like what I tell the kids at school: they often expend enormous intellectual energy trying to find loopholes in the rules or develop ever sneakier ways to cheat on assignments and tests, when they could devote the same amount of energy and creativity to just doing the assignment the right way in the first place. (Hmm, and now I'm comparing legislators to schoolkids... loyal readers, take that analogy wherever you wish! ;-) )