Last updated on 2014.08.21
I'm the French teacher at Spearfish High School. Governor Dennis Daugaard apparently considers the work I do for the taxpayers superfluous. Or if not my job, he appears to consider at least 3,000 of my colleagues in K-12 education dead weight.
Consider the following point about K-12 enrollment and employment belabored by Governor Daugaard yesterday in his State of the State address:
In 1971, South Dakota had 173,006 students, 8,452 certified teachers, and another 5,436 "non-teachers"—everything from administrators and aides to cooks and janitors.
Forty years later, there were 123,629 students in K-12 schools. That is a decline of just under 50,000 students in forty years—a drop of about 28 percent. During that same period, while student numbers were falling, we have added 869 new teachers. Today we have more than 9,300 teachers, an increase of about 10 percent. So we are employing over 800 more teachers to educate 50,000 fewer students.
We have also seen a dramatic increase in "other staff" over the past forty years. From the 5,436 in 1971, we have increased to 9,005. That is an increase of 3,569, or 66%. Today, we have over 9,300 teachers and just over 9,000 other staff. Our schools employ nearly as many non-teachers as teachers [Governor Dennis Daugaard, State of the State address, Pierre, SD, 2012.01.10].
The governor acknowledges that some of the increase in staff comes mainstreaming special education students and maybe some unspecified "government mandates." But Daugaard also lays blame on the "tendency of institutions, especially government institutions, to grow larger over time."
Yes, indeed, fellow South Dakotans: all those extra teachers lounging about at your local school? They are a result of your school district—of you, through your local school board, wastefully and wantonly hiring a bunch of unnecessary teachers and janitors and other useless hangers-on.
By Daugaard's numbers, in 1971, South Dakota's K-12 schools had 20.4 teachers for every student. Now that ratio is 13.3 to 1. To return to that 1971 ratio (don't ask me why we should do that; just shut up and clap for the Governor), we would need to cut 3,281 teachers, just over a third of our current K-12 teaching corps.
Go to your local school. Spearfish High School, Madison Middle School, Mellete Elementary in Watertown, wherever. Pick out the teachers who are wasting your money and adding no value to your children's education. You need to cross off one of every three names. Take that list of cross-outs and wash-outs to your school board and say, "Enough government bloat! Fire these teachers!"
That's what Governor Daugaard wants. And that's what you'll get if you keep voting for Republican legislators who think Governor Daugaard is a "Supreme Being" whose legislation they are duty-bound to enact.
Did the governor say that he wanted to eliminate a third of all teachers?
How much bloat is there in the rest of state government?
Amen Corey Amen. The war on education began last year and continues. I hope AREA jumps all over this
Listen to that speech was one of the most frustrating things I've done in a long time. He basically said to everyone who has been a teacher in the last 40 years, you have no value whatsoever.
Dites adieu a votre regime foncier precieux!
You guys are so blind to your ideology, it is impossible to discuss any new ideas to reform what is obviously broken.
Is the Governor's proposal consistent with ALEC proposed legislation?
Troy, you say "what is so obviously broken" what do you see as broken in our system?
Jana,
Wow, big question. Essentially, it is exemplified in costs that have doubled inflation over the last 40 years (no place in society do we have such inflation) yet declining performance. This continuous exponential cost growth without any performance increase is a national tragedy. Just about every other segment of society (including many government services) have actually had deflationary pressure through productivity and technology improvements. But I think you are looking also for specifics. This is just a few.
1) Excessive supervision (by feds & state). I think there needs to be more local control.
2) Excessive administration. I'd rather delegate more authority to teachers which would justify more pay who are with specific students every day. Read the Governor's speech. Administration and teachers have grown in the last 40 years on a per student basis. This makes no sense. Less students per teacher should translate into less need for supervision of professionals. Let me give you an example from here in SFalls. We have both principals and multiple assistant principals at our high schools. Yet, they can't do squat without permission from the Central office. Poor management. This centralization diminishes accountability and localized improvement based on circumstances on the ground. With regard to teachers, if they are the professionals people say they are, leave them alone. Let them educate.
3) Which goes to the Governor's dropping tenure. The main job of administration/supervision should be ensuring BROAD policies are followed, get out of the way of the teacher, and them grade them on results (which is why we should terminate tenure). I want more teacher pay (my daughter is a junior in education major) but I also want her to be accountable for how well she does. And, if she is not a good teacher, it is not in the student's or public's interest for her job protection to supercede what is best for the students.
Talk to any principal about their challenges. One they will talk about is passive-aggression from some (not all) tenured teachers. This is a direct impediment for proper supervision. Education is the only institution in America that tolerates this. It is time for it to stop.
Jana, don't get me wrong. I think we need to reform compensation of teachers that gets more money to retain the best teachers as well as allocate more of our education dollars to salaries in general. But, this counter-productive status quo is unworkable. It hurts students.
Where are you on gender segregated education, Troy?
http://www.tolerance.org/magazine/number-37-spring-2010/gender-segregation-separate-effective
no teacher left behind #fail
A functional press corps and representatives of professional organizations would and should be alerted by those statistics to do some fact checking. A glib statistic of a 28 percent decline in students and a 10 percent increase in teachers raises credibility issues. From a local perspective, that statistic seems contradictory, when this town has closed two elementary schools in the time frame cited and had other reductions in programs and staffs. Beyond double-checking the facts, there should be some explanation of exactly where the increases in staffing have been made. If you can dig up general statistics, you can break them down and analyze them for their real significance. If it is a matter of institutional bloat, then prove it; don't just raise that as a possibility and proceed on it as a basis for decision-making. There are plenty of questions that should require answers.
From a rhetorical standpoint, that statistic would suggest reasons for eliminating tenure and putting teachers on a piece work pay schedule. If no one demands a more precise explanation for the statistic, the governor would have his way. It is not as if the current regimes in power pay any attention to facts, but at least the people who have chosen education as their careers will have a basis for deciding whether to change directions or pursue their careers elsewhere.
Educators should not let politicians dictate the statistics and impose their agendas. They should at least demand the kind of accounting being demanded of them.
I meant SDEA in my earlier statement. Just a couple of things Troy. My wife has been teaching for more then 30 years and she says they're really is no tenure. If a school wants to fire a teacher they can and she's seen it done.
Second, what is a good teacher or a bad teacher? My wife has had parents that thought she was a fantastic teacher and a few that went after her job. Again, how can you rate a teacher?
I work at a place where I have to meet production levels. If I don't I'm done.
But teaching is not black and white. How can you come up with a fair measure to issue merit pay? It'll become which teacher sucks up the most.
And for the the Governor to call this a raise in teacher compensation is a crock. Not every teacher will share ion the spoils.
Just wondering if the rural out-migration from small towns has something to do with the difference in students and teachers.
Haven't read his whole speech yet, but certainly he brought up forced consolidation of small school districts...didn't he?
[CAH: Actually, Jana, the speech didn't mention school consolidation or any specific small-school issues.]
Thanks Troy...but (no place in society do we have such inflation) So what am I missing on health care costs?
Your comment on "Administration and teachers have grown in the last 40 years on a per student basis." is clearly affected by schools becoming too small in our rural areas and the lack of political will/courage to force consolidation, or just recognize that these smaller and declining districts are going to be less cost effective.
So is the WIN program for teacher pretty much defined by even if you are the best and we give you a performance bonus, you'll still be one of the most poorly paid in the country and...oh yeah...that tenure thing that other states have that pay more...fughettaboutit.
Sounds more like Charlie Sheen's definition of WINning.
Troy, here's another one that I am trying to figure out..."1) Excessive supervision (by feds & state). I think there needs to be more local control."
Doesn't the funding they receive come with some accountability? So let's say we do away with that funding, what would be the intended and unintended consequences of that action?
Just guessing, but wouldn't that lead to some exorbitant increases in local property taxes or a severe cut in educational services offered?
Troy, glad your daughter is pursuing a career in education. I have a son who is still in high school but has set his sights on being a social studies teacher. I also have 3 nieces who are currently finishing their degrees in education and practice teaching.
Help me make the economic and business case for why they should teach in South Dakota. My guess is that their hearts will all probably want to teach in SD, but they will have to make an economic sacrifice to do so. And we'll thank them how?
As long as education is seen as an expense and not an investment at the governing level, we can't help but see students and educators as liabilities. Which may explain much of what has come out of Pierre.
Oh yeah, one other thing Troy. Your example of the Sioux Falls School District and their principals and assistant principals not being able to do anything without an OK from the district office. That is a gross generalization and I think you know that too.
Troy,
I'm a bit confused by your post, so please help me out. You write,
"Excessive supervision (by feds & state). I think there needs to be more local control."
The Governor's plan mandates a specific evaluation regime that was set in Pierre not by a local school board. Further, the pay structure is set in Pierre not by local school boards. I'm not sure how this measure increases local control.
Next, you write, "With regard to teachers, if they are the professionals people say they are, leave them alone. Let them educate." I would love to try, but I am now teaching to a central government mandated testing schedule that doesn't allow me to do much teaching of critical thinking or anything else that can't be filled in on a bubble test.
Next you discuss tenure. I have recently looked at the procedures my principal must follow. If he can't get rid of a teacher, good or bad, with three paragraphs on school letterhead, he's incompetent.
Finally, you write, "I think we need to reform compensation of teachers that gets more money to retain the best teachers as well as allocate more of our education dollars to salaries in general. But, this counter-productive status quo is unworkable. It hurts students."
This plan doesn't do any of those goals. It will not reward the best; it will reward those who have the good fortune to be assigned good students. It doesn't increase salaries in general.
I hope you daughter had the foresight to major in a STEM field instead of something unworthy like history or English. At least then she'll get a small raise in her base pay when she starts teaching.
I gotta get back to work. My lunch 23 minutes are about up.
Of course on the flip side, getting rid of tenure protects the politically and socially connected administrators from being called out by low paid, long term, dedicated professional educators for being inept.
But we all know that there are no politically connected administrators out there and politics has absolutely no bearing on their hiring or the election of the school boards that govern them.
By the way, have we totally dismantled whistle blower protections in South Dakota?
Maybe there is something to that testing for teachers. After all we have seen how well it work for Republican legislators and testing them for their Republican purity.
I mean, what could go wrong? Certainly the testing for teachers is as straight forward as testing the political purity of a Republican. After all, it is there in black and white. Right? No gray area, no nuance, no consideration of outside factors. It is as plain as the nose on your face. You are either a good teacher, or your not. You are either a good Republican, or your not.
And of course I'm not a teacher....your or you're...doh! Guess I can kiss tenure goodbye.
David, I'm with you on the "A functional press corps and representatives of professional organizations would and should be alerted by those statistics to do some fact checking."
From your lips to the media mogul's ears. Unfortunately we don't have what could be considered a functional press corp in Pierre. Costs to much money to keep the experienced ones there and (nothing against the young press corp on their temporary assignments) the new ones don't know their way around well enough to do anything but report what they are told.
The experienced ones know that if they report on government properly that they can get a job with the government some day...so why screw that up.
Right, Kafka? Krebs? et al?
Owen, Jana, & LK:
Good issues. Shows the matter is complex and requires great thought. I don't have the time (nor expertise) to vette every issue. But I'll touch on a few:
Owen: "My wife . . .she says they’re really is no tenure. If a school wants to fire a teacher they can and she’s seen it done." This speaks to some misunderstanding. To some, tenure is to be absolute security. However, it is something more than what most employees operate under. Why are teachers given more security than others who do good and important work?
"What is a good teacher or a bad teacher?" One who meets the educational needs of their students. Somebody has to make that assessment and they need to have freedom to make corrections (fire, corrective action plans, etc.). Tenure diminishes the opportunity (ie the passive-aggression as they know it is relatively hard to fire them.
"How can you come up with a fair measure to issue merit pay? It’ll become which teacher sucks up the most." This is what management does all the time. Why do we think our school boards and principals/superintendents can't do this? If they can't, let's find people who can.
"And for the the Governor to call this a raise in teacher compensation is a crock. Not every teacher will share ion the spoils." He didn't say it was for everyone. Only those who are the best. Why can't we encourage excellence in education and why are some so envious that some will be rewarded?
Jana:
"Just wondering if the rural out-migration from small towns has something to do with the difference in students and teachers."
Sioux Falls numbers are not materially different than the state average and in some cases are worse.
"Health care costs" There is a definitive qualitative change (like air conditioning and air bags in cars). Today, we have better and more intensive cancer/neo-natal care, etc. Inflation isn't just cost.
"Doesn’t the funding they receive come with some accountability? So let’s say we do away with that funding, what would be the intended and unintended consequences of that action? Just guessing, but wouldn’t that lead to some exorbitant increases in local property taxes or a severe cut in educational services offered?"
Block Grants from the feds would be one answer. But, even so, we have in the end have to trust the local to do the right thing, and this includes the teacher. Centralization adds cost and implies the locals are not properly motivated. I don't buy that with teachers, administrators or school boards. Let them do their jobs.
"Troy, glad your daughter is pursuing a career in education. . . .Help me make the economic and business case for why they should teach in South Dakota . . . (and be willing to)to make an economic sacrifice to do so. And we’ll thank them how?"
Why do people choose to be social workers, nurses, etc.? It is a personal question of total compensation/fullfillment. She understands she won't make much money. She sees reward beyond money. Do we really want people to see our children as objects to economic reward?
"As long as education is seen as an expense and not an investment at the governing level, we can’t help but see students and educators as liabilities. Which may explain much of what has come out of Pierre."
This is so old. EVERYONE who thinks/cares about education (which includes almost every parent, grandparent, and person in very community whether they be Republican or Democrat) understands it is an "investment." But that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider stewardship/effectiveness/direction components as well as the resources that go to education vs. other good and important needs of a community.
LK:
"The Governor’s plan mandates a specific evaluation regime that was set in Pierre not by a local school board." Good point. It is also a change in policies/mandates from the state regarding tenure/governance. It is also a carrot for reform.
"I am now teaching to a central government mandated testing schedule that doesn’t allow me to do much teaching of critical thinking." I agree. Let's let teachers teach. If they don't perform, let's either give them corrective action plans or ask them to find a profession were they can succeed.
"(The Governors initiative) will reward those who have the good fortune to be assigned good students." This is true only if our administrators are stupid and incompetant. Managers know performance based on conditions/environment and consider impediments/difficulties. If the adminstrators are competent, it will more likely reward those who have more difficult conditions and the teachers with "good students" will have less opportunity to excel.
"It doesn’t increase salaries in general." It isn't intended to do that. We need a more fundamental reform to do this. And, teachers have to be a the forefront of supporting it. The current knee-jerk opposition to any reform only impedes increasing salaries in general.
"I hope you daughter had the foresight to major in a STEM field instead of something unworthy like history or English."
Nope. She knows what she is doing and the economic consequences.
LK, thanks for your vocation. May God bless you.
Larry,
Just saw your question about gender segregated classrooms. Beyond my pay grade. However, we instituted it for religious education at my parish and it is working wonderfully. The consensus is for two reasons:
1) Removes the hormone distraction. Applies in our schools
2) More important religious education involves questions which having only one gender allows a more open discussion. In our schools where most classes are lecture-like with less student interaction, probably not as important. But might apply where discussion is more central to the class.
But, this is just my gut reaction. As I said, above my pay grade.
Sidenote: My daughter who went to Creighton and had three friends who were educated at all-girls Catholic schools and they absolutely loved it. Might be an option only in our larger communities.
Thank you, Troy. Good insight.
Daugaard thinks he's saying something new regarding school staffing. All this has been known for decades.
Let's look at what's happened since the 70s.
(1) There was a drop in student numbers after the baby boom generation. Want to go back to 35 kids in an elementary classroom? No, I didn't think so. In the 60s in Rapid City and Sioux Falls, high school students went half days so that all the students could be served. There was a conscious decision to reduce class sizes in the 70s from those numbers by not laying off experienced teaching staff. And then again in the 1990s there was a bipartisan effort to reduce class sizes in the lower three grades.
(2) Special education and mainstreaming accounts for about one fourth of the increase.
(3) Reading specialists in elementary schools and more one-on-one tutoring in high schools. In many district there was a conscious effort to put more teachers into reading and math remediation. If you catch kids up in basic skills early there are usually fewer behavioral and learning problems later on. In Rapid City, these positions were paid for by cutting high school counsellors.
(4) An increase in "drop in" alternative programs to meet the needs of kids who are at risk or have dropped out. We used to just say, "have a great life." Now we try to help these kids graduate.
(5) A significant change in technology between the 80s and 90s meant a vast increase in technology (computer) instruction. Guess what? That takes teaching staff.
Daugaard doesn't bother to say where the teaching levels are low, but I can tell you. It's in the small school districts. If he wants to go to war with small town South Dakota, he's going to be throwing away his base. Lotsa luck on that one.
Sex segregation=higher taxes and legal problems. Because you have two smaller schools where you had a larger school, administrative costs are higher. Separate but equal is illegal, so you have to treat the sexes equally. In Madison, WI, a proposed single sex charter was turned down because costs were 150% higher than a heterosexual school.
Gender, not sex, Don. Why shouldn't districts decide?
And why can't it happen in the same building?
Holy cow, Don: did you just prove that all of those increased staff are a result not of some drifty bureaucratic bloat but of conscious and well-informed decisions by school boards and the Legislature alike?
Troy, here's a thought: Governor Daugaard says the point of the merit bonuses is to promote effective teaching. The bonus scheme appears to assume that only 20% of our K-12 teachers are effective enough to deserve a raise. What is we all step up our game to the level of that current 80th percentile teacher? Shouldn't we all get bonuses?
Here's a thought: why not trust the school boards and administrators to hire effective teachers and make it possible for the schools to give bonuses—or just plain competitive wages—to every one of those effective teachers?
Cory, exactly. These are all decisions made by thoughtful people over decades. In South Dakota, that means that Daugaard is dissing generations of mostly Republican Governors and legislators. Good heavens, have we forgotten that Janklow's and Mickelson's efforts led to, gasp, MORE TEACHERS on the payroll.
Now, we could rethink some of their decisions in light of today's priorities. I always thought dumping lots of money into computers and computer instruction at elementary schools was a huge waste of money. I always wanted to redirect those funds to better technology programs at the middle and high school level and more teachers at the elementary level. But that's just me. The Republican Governors thought having flashing lights in first grade was more important than flash cards.
Take a look at this link listing all that has been "added" to public education over the years. This might clear up some of the confusion about the need for all of those extra teachers and staff. The Governor proposes to solve problems that don't exist. He is just following the right wing play book used in other states. Competent administrators already can (and do) move ineffective teachers out the door. Aside from this the work ethic and professionalism of SD teachers is largely intact. Merit pay for teachers cannot help but be hopelessly divisive and political in public education where salaries are published. This is especially true for SD where teacher salaries are lowest in the nation. With SD teachers already on starvation diets, selectively throwing bags of peanuts is insulting to all. We are not circus animals who need rewards for "performance", assuming this could actually be fairly, consistently measured across all disciplines. One more huge issue, what parent will want his/her child placed with the non-bonus teachers? Here's the link for Government caused growth of expectations for teachers and public schools. http://db.tt/oyxaItK
"There was a conscious decision to reduce class sizes in the 70s from those numbers by not laying off experienced teaching staff."
"Daugaard doesn’t bother to say where the teaching levels are low, but I can tell you. It’s in the small school districts."
Donald, isn't it the small schools that you find smaller class sides. You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth.
Anybody want to argue that education is not one of teh most important services? Then why not improve it with real competiton. Open up the state aid to homeschool and private schools. Let the parents determine which system of education is best for their children. Call it "Pro-choice Education".
Steve,
If you believe in the Constitution (SD's) and the rule of law, the state can't provide state aid to homeschool and private schools. The solution you have is to initiate a change in the Constitutional language or suggest that a Legislator introduce such a Joint Resolution to make that change.
Regarding small schools, I should probably clarify that I mean small school districts that have one or two elementary schools with each class having 8-14 students. These schools bring down the statewide student per class averages. Small elementary schools in Rapid City still have 15-20 students per classroom.
Yes, smaller school districts generally have smaller class sizes. And if Daugaard is concerned about student per class averages being too small, he's going to have to require closures and consolidations. Otherwise he is talking through his hat.
Donald, we are currently funding a New Age Theology that is creating the New World Order's Theocracy. We are now violating the Constitution and the rule of law.
Sibby has a hard time keeping his argument straight, it seems. First he argues that the people who wrote the Constitution were all New Agers, then that the New Agers are violating the Constitution. What a screwball.
Steve,
You can have someone bring suit to test your novel theories. Good luck.
Bill,
It is not my fault that the New Agers cannot follow their own rules. Liberty, fraternity, and equality are utopian dreams that man cannot accomplish himself. The New Age is about man evolving to be like god. There is no room for Biblical doctrine that says man is sinful and in need of Jesus Christ as our Savior. The First Amendment was to remove Christianity, not protect it. Now it is being ignored as the New Age Theocracy is established.
The Constitution is not a religion, Steve. It's absolutely your fault if you think it is. It certainly isn't mine, Cory's or Thomas Jefferson's. Your arguments stand in contradiction to themselves. And that is 100% your problem, not anyone else's.
"The Constitution is not a religion, Steve."
Never said it was. The First amendment does mention religion. So stop with the deception. Or is that what you New Agers consider critical thinking?
See what I mean Sibby, you have your mind in such a twist, you don't even remember your own arguments.
"See what I mean Sibby"
No I don't BiIl. Nor do I care to figure it out.
@rcjTaylorRick: SD ranks dead last in Quality Counts education survey from Education Week.