Senate Majority Leader Russell Olson (R-8/Wentworth) is shocked, disappointed, upset, and frustrated.
Well, I guess my work for the day is done.
No, seriously, Senator Olson puts on his crabby pants for KJAM and joins the Governor in spinning against the people's right to refer HB 1234 to a public vote. In his interview, Senator Olson makes the remarkable claim that South Dakota Education Association exec Bryce Healy promised that if the Legislature delayed Governor Daugaard's plan to end continuing contract rights for teachers to 2016, SDEA would not seek a referendum on the bill.
Gee, Russ, would you care to substantiate that claim? Don't you wish you had discussions like this in public, on record, so we could all see that what you're saying isn't just a fabircation?
I'm not an SDEA member, so I don't have an inside track on that information. However, my B.S. alarm is ringing mightily. SDEA and the rest of us have plenty of reasons to oppose the multiple ills visited on education by HB 1234. To suggest that SDEA would drop its opposition to all of those ills on the mere delaying of one of those ills for four years stretches credulity... though I welcome my friends at SDEA to twang that rubber band.
In other baloney, Senator Olson apes the Governor's money line: "I can't see why somebody would want to refer something that gives money to teachers."
You're wrong in general and on specifics here, Russ. In general, I can easily justify voting against a policy that gives money to teachers when there is no evidence the policy will work, or when there might be alternative policies that would work better. Heck, if you have $15 million to spend, you might do more good for kids by buying them all breakfast than by running their teachers through a merit pay rat race.
And even more specifically, we aren't referring something that gives money to teachers. HB 1234 doesn't appropriate one penny for teachers. Voting HB 1234 won't take one penny out of teachers' pockets.
Senator Olson also whines and wheezes about local control. "Every district has the opportunity to make their own plan," he says. Again, be careful when Republicans use the word opportunity. I'll bet Russ tells his kids they have the opportunity to eat boiled carrots. You don't have to; you get to!
In a final self-contradiction, Senator Olson calls HB 1234 a "good final product." Yet he touts his sponsorship of the last big amendment to the bill, the creation of the South Dakota Education Reform Advisory Council, the group that is supposed to study K-12 education and suggest ways to fix what's wrong with this "good final product."
HB 1234 is clearly neither good nor final. Senator Russell Olson voted for this very bad bill. Now the last thing he wants is to have voters discussing that bad bill and his bad vote during the fall campaign. That's why Russ is really disappointed, upset, and frustrated.
By the way, District 8 Dems, you have less than three weeks to come up with a Senate candidate to upset and frustrate Russ further. Hop to it!
Update 12:33 MST: Watch The Displaced Plainsman pre-slice more Republican baloney. Brilliant!
SDEA will not refer HB1234 - the registered voters of South Dakota signing the petitions will. There is an important difference. I am not sure that defeating merit pay will do much good since the federal government is really pushing the concept and the golden rule applies: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Mr. "H," In fairness, please remember there were plenty Republicans that view this bill as unconstitutional and against SDGOP Party Platform Plank 4.3.
When have you ever heard true Republicans arguing that more government control and involvement is good? For the party that used to have abolishment of the national Dept of Education as a party plank, there are still a couple of us old bull elephants hanging in there..
take yer waders:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/
Oh, Rep. Nelson, I will be fair. I aim my criticism here very specifically at the Senate Majority Leader, not at Republicans like you who had the good sense to vote against this bill. Heck, if we can't find a Democrat willing to take on the Olson money machine, I'll settle for a primary challenge from a Republican less beholden to the Party bosses. Hmmm... Rep Stricherz faces two tough challengers in the House... Perhaps we can persuade her to run for Senate? (I'd switch parties to vote in Olson-Stricherz primary!)
Represenative Nelson,
When I read the bill, I wonder where the loss of local control is. What am I missing?
Section 26 specifically says they can opt out of the merit pay section(which has criteria and conditions) and has no impact on their budget or anything else they are currently doing. They have the option of the status quo.
Section 26 does not allow them to opt out of the math & science bonus. However, it also requires them to do nothing but certify M&S teachers according to the criteria and the state sends them a check. Again, no requirement to change anything they are currently doing or plan to do.
Since I see no loss of local control, I don't think it violates Plank 4-3.
More importantly, since this is similar to items local districts can choose to access like special education funding based on local needs, this "true Republican" thinks it is consistent with Plank 4-5 (state aid which is a broad term and includes special ed funding outside the formula) and Plank 4-1 which highlights educations priority which includes rewarding good teaching/teachers and math/science.
Additionally, the national Republican platform does not call for the abolishment of the federal Department of Education. It calls for "a review of Department of Education programs and administration to identify and eliminate ineffective programs, to respect the role of states, and to better meet state needs."
But even for this "true Republican" who does support abolishment of the Department and lessening the federal role in education, such a view does translate into support in the abolishment of the South Dakota Department of Education.
But you raise a Constitutional argument I've never heard. Is this the US Constitution or State Constitution and what is the basis for this argument?
As I'm sure you are aware, our State Constitution (Article 8, Section 1) puts the primary responsibility for insuring quality and uniform education with the State. Local school boards are essentially a creation of State Law under this section of the constitution.
“I can’t see why somebody would want to refer something that gives money to teachers.â€
They not giving money to teachers, they are bribing teachers into helping implement the New Age Theology of Common Core Standards. That is not local control. Those are International standards coming out of UNESCO. That is the farthest thing from local control. Saying if you don't do things our way, then you don't get your fair share of the taxpayers' money is not local control. It is coercion. It is corrupt. It needs to be voted down by the people.
Troy, the part they say is unconstitutional is that they view the bill as having multiple subjects (our constitution says only one subject per bill). However, though arguable, there is only one subject of the bill... teacher compensation as it relates to student achievement. Regarding local control, it is not a Republican value to divorce tax payer dollars from accountability. Local control is all over this bill, but it's not absolute nor should it be.
Thanks Hickey. Next time vote your conscience.
Representative Hickey,
In the words of Wm. F. Buckley, if that is their reasoning, I have just one thing to say: "I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said."
Mike, I did vote my conscience. My concerns were addressed. I don't presume to know your conscience and you sure don't know mine.
I'm dubious as well about the constitutional argument I heard Tornow, Hubbel, et al. voice during the House debate. However, you guys did make a big deal about telling Congress to adopt a single-subject amendment (HCR 1010), just like Article 3 Section 21 in the South Dakota Constitution: "No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title."
I can understand how Tornow et al. might wage an argument here. HB 1234 bears this gobstopper title:
"...provide incentives to teach in critical need areas, to provide for rewards for the best teachers and those teaching in math and science subject areas, to revise certain provisions regarding evaluation of teachers, to create a system for evaluating principals, to distinguish between tenured and nontenured teachers, to revise certain provisions regarding the employment of teachers, and to repeal provisions regarding the teacher compensation assistance program."
Now Rep. Hickey, if you're going to boil that into one subject, you'll need to expand beyond teacher compensation as it relates to student achievement. The scholarships go to college students, not teachers, and they have no clear link to student achievement. The new evaluation instruments do not apply strictly to compensation, and they also apply to principals. "Tenure" doesn't apply to compensation or student achievement.
So if we're going to run down the single-subject rabbit hole (dang, I'm going to end up needing a separate post on this one), what is the single subject? Rep. Hickey, would you to re-direct?
Representative Hickey,
They should feel free to argue that case as they see fit. It is why we have a separation of powers. I do think it is a stretch as the "subject" is all about education, the law amends Chapter 13 of SDCL, and it my understanding the purpose is to insure non-related items aren't in one bill (eg a bill about Game Fish and Parks and the Labor law). As it says below, there is no limit to the scope and magnitude of the subject.
The controlling rule is expressed in the landmark case of State v. Morgan, 2 S.D. 32, 48 N.W. 314, as follows:
“The constitutional requirement in our constitution is addressed to the subject.   This subject must be single.   The provisions of the act must all relate directly to the same subject, have a natural connection, and not be foreign to the subject as stated in the title.   The title must state the subject of the act for the information, not only of the legislature, but of the public generally.   When the title of a legislative act expresses a general subject or purpose which is single, all matters which are naturally and reasonably connected with it, and all measures which will or may facilitate the accomplishment of the purpose so stated, are germane to its title.   There is no constitutional restriction as to the scope or magnitude of the single subject of a legislative act.â€
Incentives that produce teachers are all factors related to student achievement. In hindsight this should have been three bills and had that been the case it wouldn't have been such a mouthful to swallow.
Rep. Hickey, stop working so hard! Couldn't you just take Troy's tack, say the subject is K-12 education, and call it good? I'm o.k. with that... and I'll be spending my extra time and energy on gathering signatures this spring and getting votes this fall, not cobbling together a legal challenge (at last not on an Article 3 Section 21 challenge).
An argument could be made that the HR 1234 violates Section 1 of Article 8 of the South Dakota Constitution, which states "...it shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schools...."
After nearly 50 years of trying to assure greater uniformity in the system of public schools, this bill seems (perhaps unintentionally) designed to unbalance that system. Since no money is dumped into this scheme by the bill, perhaps the bill survives a constitutional challenge, but without funding the program, the bill is appears to be an empty shell.
I'm sure the argument will be made next year that the money can be added in by majority vote, since the program has been established. That, too, might be Constitutionally improper, but I think it's been done that way in the past. Once money is distributed through this program, it will lead to a lack of uniformity and generality.
This is a bad law, not very well thought out.
I have no idea if you voted your conscience or not Rep. Hickey. I'll leave that decision up to you. It disappointed me greatly that you wrote against it on your blog and than a short time later when the governor needed 1 vote to pass you uniquley were there to support the bill.
Maybe it changed. I don't see how it changed substantially enough for you to say (after your first vote for it) that it was your least favorite bill. http://www.voicescarryblog.com/hb-1234-my-least-favorite-bill-this-legislative-session/
Rep. Hickey
Here is how you concluded your blog post about HB 1234.
"Even so, if I had to vote today on the bill in it's final form I'd vote no. Why? Because this conversation can't happen in 33 days and the education community needs to be in the mix at the onset (in the same way the medicaid providers were in the middle of the Medicaid Task Force last year). The Governor is spot on when it comes to the priority of education reform and his plans are bold, innovative and very much pointed in the right direction. He enjoys a high approval rating for his leadership last year and this year. However, leadership is at it's best when the people we lead take ownership in where we are going and even believe where we are going was their idea all along. That's brilliant leadership - it is the art of good leadership put forth your agenda in such a way that the people we lead think it is their own. I see no way to fix HB1234 in the next two weeks so that happens with the education community."
I guess we could have the conversation in 33 days? I'm not sure what happened.
I've voted for one Dem in my entire life and that was for one who was unnopposed. This is bad legislation. Pure and simple. I can't follow your reasoning at all especially from vote 1 (in favor of bill) to the blog post (anti bill) to vote number 2 (in favor of again). the 33 days certainly didn't change. Schlekeway, Hunhoff, Bolling etc were absolutely right on this bill.
Mike, in my follow up post to the one you site I explain how the 33 days has been stretched into 2016 and how all the players now have a substantial window of opportunity and time to do Ed Reform right. I mentioned how I became convinced this was movement in the right direction and preferable to the status quo.
Rev. Hickey,
Three questions:
First, do you believe that teachers have been sitting back and not using all the tools available to them and waiting for merit pay to use those tools? (Yes I stole that one from Bernie Hunhoff but that doesn't mean it's a bad question.)
Second, which Republican governor or governors along with the secretaries of education that they appointed are responsible for the current status quo that you deplore? Democrats haven't had anyone in the governor's mansion for over 30 years.
3. Can you please point to an example of when committees have improved a bad idea, especially when the majority of the members of those committees have been appointed by the person advocating that idea?
Lk, wish you had asked me. ;)
Feel free to answer :)
1) No. Just as people didn't wait around to do their work before computers, the system used what it had. This is just another tool to all managers to manage and stimulate better performance.
2) I think they deserve responsibility for not utilizing all available means to address issues before it reached this point. Janklow however did initiate matters on the right track but the momemtum got lost.
3) I don't understand your question.
3)
Rep. Hickey, your response conjures this image: you and your fellow legislators are standing on top of a hill (or perhaps a plateau?) with a bunch of kids. You want to get the kids down off the hill. There's a broken-down bus parked nearby. You consider loading the kids up and pushing the bus over the steep cliff right behind you. You decide it's a little wiser to start the bus rolling down the really steep road next to the cliff. You know the bus is in bad shape. You know you should seek better wheels. But because you prefer movement over standing around, you load the bus and push. You know that if you let the bus roll unhindered, the kids are headed for a wreck. So you shout, "Don't worry, kids! We're sending a committee along on the bus to put in new brakes on the way down. They'll fix the bus before anything bad happens."
I don't mind waiting for a bus that works. I'm not even sure we need to leave the hill.
LK, I believe the present system of teacher compensation is flawed and unfair and that it's time to change how teachers are paid. It was highly frustrating to my wife and I that she'd work her tail off and the guy across the hall did the minimums and they were compensated the same. Furthermore, HB1234 brings all those involved to the table which is important. Imagine the uproar if the governor said he didn't want their input.
Rev. Hickey,
The cynic in me beleives that there's a good chance the teacher across the hall will have as good of chance of getting the bonus under HB 1234 as your hard working better half.
Also, I have been doing this a long time. I'm not sure theres much of a difference between the teacher who is in the top 15% and the teacher who comes in at the 40% mark.
The Governor didn't ask for input before and he's going to stack this committee with people that make a echo chamber look like a House of Commons debate.
Troy,
If you were being facetious on number 3, I apologize for answering seriously. I was referring to the super-committees that HB 1234 now has. To the best of my knowledge the only good and beautiful thing to come out a committee like that was the King James Bible.
The KJV had some Divine help. From my point of view HB 1234's inspiration came from the opposite direction.
"I'm not even sure we should leave the hill"
There is a frog in a pot on the stove who said the same thing.
The frog in boiling water is myth
http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2011/03/frog-fable-brought-to-boil/
I was serious. Now I get your question.
This is a pretty standard means of getting broad input, it is advisory so the degree their recommendations are considered will be based on their merits.
In South Dakota (and US) the executive functions are centered in the Executive Branch. They have the obligation to execute the laws and do not have to ask for advice. You should be applauding its existence and giving it a chance to work. To do otherwise presumes people don't want to do the best thing. Until there is evidence otherwise (and disagreement is not evidence of anything but a disagreement) . . . .
II know you admire and respect the Governor
As I admitted on another thread, I find this Governor the perfect Machiavellian and distrust him more than any other South Dakota politican, so yes I doubt his motives and firmly believe these committees are a fig leaf to hide an inevitible rubber stamp. (Sorry for mixing metaphors.)
"Local control is all over this bill, but it’s not absolute nor should it be."
Rep. Hickey, you will learn local control when HB1234 is voted down by the people in a huge way.
Rep. Hickey,
A question: any particular leadership postion they are holding open for you?
Community organizer?
No Steve, I still haven't bumped into any of perks of this high calling.
Well I would expect they will be coming soon.
Troy, there is no pot, there is no burner. Prove otherwise. And even if you can, I see no reason to jump out of this reasonably comfortable and effective frying pan and into the fiery crash the bus promises. (Some fear mixed metaphors; I embrace them and stir harder!)
They'll be coming soon all right: calling any cleric, "Reverend" is like calling Hannibal Lecter, "Chef."
SDGOP Platform Plank 4.3 "...supports parental choice and local control in education in our state."
Pray tell, when the overwhelming contact on this bill was AGAINST it, how did we give parents the choice and control in deciding or implimenting it? If the control is still largely residing with the legislature and governor's office, how is that parental local control? Again, when have REPUBLICANS ever claimed "more government is good" as was preached on the floor on this Frankenstein's bill?
@Troy are you Troy Jones? Note, I said "For the party that used to have abolishment of the national Dept of Education as a party plank.." Read the 1980 section: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/san.diego/facts/past.platforms/thumbnails/index.shtml
Regarding the one subject aspect of the title and bill. The official title of HB 1234 "provide incentives to teach in critical need areas, to provide for rewards for the best teachers and those teaching in math and science subject areas, to revise certain provisions regarding evaluation of teachers, to create a system for evaluating principals, to distinguish between tenured and nontenured teachers, to revise certain provisions regarding the employment of teachers, and to repeal provisions regarding the teacher compensation assistance program." If you believe that is one subject, then our public schools REALLY have failed.
Yes Stace, true local control should clearly be in the hands of the parents. We are far from that. When local control is defined by the central planners as:
"this is voluntary, but if you want your tax dollars back then do it. If you want to do things your way, then pay for it yourself."
Same mindset was used in colonial America when your church was paid for with tax dollars as long as you agreed with the Church of England. Baptists were required to pay the Church Tax and then given the "freedom" to go to their own church if they could afford to support financially. The First Amendment was designed to do away with that, because that is not really freedom or local control. Today we are right back to the same tyranny. If you disagree with the Establishment of a New Age Theocracy via the public schools, then you are free to homeschool and pay for private education. We are far from local control today, and Daugaard is taking us further away from it. Sad that a Pastor would support him.
LK: I know many people who disagree with the Governor on alot of things. I have yet to hear a single opponent who knows him question his integrity or motives. I find him to be of impeccable integrity. Policies in my mind are not matters that goes to character. Character is much deeper.
Regarding your 15-40% point: I don't doubt you are wholly right. In fact I hope that is the case. I would like to think the difference between the very best and the one in the 90th percentile quite small. But some years a teacher gets tasked with either big challenges, has big opportunities, and it requires extraordinary effort, etc. So, if this teacher faced with these challenges/opportunities performs great, I want to reward this teacher. Period. But, I do get your point about why should only the first half get a bonus and not the other half. Maybe it could be so simple as they are in the first half. But, in my mind it is more. It is likely the best performers made the decisions that worked in the situation. Maybe it was luck but the harder one works the luckier they get. In the end, the students win.
Finally, I sense I understand your perspective. I "hear" the same motivation from my aspiring teacher daughter. Her only motive is to teach kids. But my motive is the same, the kids. I remember an excercise with my non-teacher daughter a few years ago. I asked for her best five teachers and five worst. There was a common theme: the best were all under 40 and the worst over 50. I asked her if she thought the worst were always bad and she said no. I asked what changed? I posited they lost their motive (despite the reality they are making the most money). Could it be they got tired of busting their butt and seeing as Hickey's wife did the guy across the hall got paid the same? Can saying thank you and recognition as a top teacher every few years make a difference? I believe so and willing to give it a try. The status quo is not working in this parent/grand parents mind.
Stace: I am Troy (I have a new computer with software that clears out my browser daily and I get tired of imputting everything every time). Sometimes people have to agree to disagree on interpreting the platform. Regarding whether this is a single subject, I made my case on why I think it is including the Supreme Court ruling which decided this. The bill amends one article and mostly one Section of the SDCL. But, I'm not a Supreme Court Judge (or attorney) and the right to ask their opinion is within anyone's right. Furthermore, I trust our Supreme Court is not an activist court looking to overrule the legitimate will of those elected by the people and they will strictly interpret the Constitution.
Steve: By virtue of the reality we have a republican democracy (not a direct democracy) and a state constitution which has delegated the principal authority to run our schools to the State (school boards are a creation of the State as the federal government is a creation of the several States), thus the context of local control includes this Constitutional delegation to the State. Look, I believe in deferring much to local school boards and parental input for a number of reasons, most importantly I believe it leads to better education.
If you want something different, you need to focus on changing the Constitution. Our Legislators swore to uphold the Constitution of both the US and the State and I am sure you are not advocating they violate their oath. Until then they must exercise their best prudential judgment to do as we asked of them when we approved our State Constitution.
CH: Prove the kids are on a hill? :)
Troy, the Constitution is bypassed with the, "if you want your tax dollars back, then do things the federal way". Again, based on the history I presented, that goes beyond bypassing the Constituion to violating the First Amendment. Public education is a tyranny that is establishing a Religion the same way the Church of England was.
And Troy, in case you don't know, the 14th Amendment took out the 10th Amendment. And the purpose of the Council of State Governments, which some of our legislators attend, is to destroy state sovereignty. I learned that doing research on Mitchell's City Manager proposal that Sen. Mike Vehle, a die-hard CSG member, and Dusty Johnson pushed.
Steve:
There is a distinction you seem to ignore: The federal government is a creation of the several States. The State is a creation of the people and is the ultimate voice of the people and most legitimate government.
I don't agree the 14th amendment supercedes the 10th amendment. They have to be read together to get the proper context (which is part of the problem with judicial rulings is they seem to assume the 14th supercedes the 10th.
"The State is a creation of the people and is the ultimate voice of the people and most legitimate government."
HUH?
Every City, County, and State office holder in every state of the Union is subject uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
There are no exceptions.
Troy, the Supreme Court has used the 14th Amenment to apply the First Amendment to state law. The First Amendment starts out with, "Congress shall pass no law...". Clearly the 14th has trumped the 10th. And then the First is ignored when the feds pass education spending bills that are voluntary, but if you want your tax money, do what we say...establish the New Age Theocracy all in the name of secularism. We are being deceived just like Jesus Christ said we would.
Kiazi's children, their faces wet. The Beast at Tanagra. Shaka, when the walls fell. Kiteo, his eyes closed. Lunga, her sky grey.
Troy, it's hard to push the metaphor, but I'll posit that I don't have to prove the kids are on a hill. Wherever they are, they seem to be in good shape. From a conservative policymaking perspective, I don't have to prove they are on a hill. You and Russ Olson have to prove to me that the status quo spot they occupy is significantly harmful, that the current system is inherently unable to transport them away from the hill, and that the plan you propose will solve their location problem. The burden of proof is on the person who would change the status quo, just as in a criminal proceeding, the burden of proof is on the prosecution that would change the defendant's status quo from freedom to incarceration.
CH:. If this gets on the ballot, people will be asked a simple question which I believe will be favorably received.
Do you support the following:
1) Establishing a critical teaching needs scholarship program to encourage high school graduates to get teaching degrees in critical areas and teach in South Dakota.
2) to create a math and science teacher incentive program to attract certified teachers who teach in math and science.
3) to bonus the top performing certified teachers.
4) to allow any teacher to be terminated, by the school board, at any time for just cause, including breach of contract, poor performance, incompetency, gross immorality, unprofessional conduct, insubordination, neglect of duty, or the violation of any policy or regulation of the school district (basically making teachers live under the same rules as everyone else in South Dakota).
Troy, you oversimplify the question. You are pretending, as did Rep. Lust in his House floor arguments, that somehow the vast grassroots opposition to this bill wasx merely a product of bad marketing.
Here's the question voters will be asked:
Do you support investing tax dollars in an educational policy that...
...has been proven not to work?
...is not directly linked to improving student achievement?
...is aimed at a problem that has not been clearly identified or substantiated by evidence?
...and takes away local control?
And Troy, your 4th point is irrelevant. HB 1234 does not change the rules about terminating teachers. You quoted SDCL 13-43-6.1, which is in effect right now and which is unchanged by HB 1234.
I hope that is your campaign. Feel free to put me as a reference if you apply to manage the drive.
I am far less optimistic than Cory that this terrible Frankenstein law will be referred.
I do, however, look forward to Governor Daugaard taking a line from Chris Christie and telling voters to oppose the referendum because "Damn, man, I'm the governor."
http://thedisplacedplainsman.blogspot.com/2012/03/chris-christie-makes-all-fat-angry-men.html
Troy, if you're trying to make me think I'm walking into a trap, it's not working. I think my phrasing of the question will cream your phrasing of the question. And I do hope we agree that your line #4 is off the table.
LK: chin up! It will require a lot of walking and knocking, but this measure will make the ballot.
No trap. I am not that smart. And this is why there are campaigns.
My 4th point came directly from HB1234.
Troy, on point 4, check the Senate version that shows the amended language. The part about terminating a teacher at any time is already in statute. HB 1234 does not change the schools' ability to fire teachers for cause at any time. HB 1234 only inserts "tenured or non-tenured" to clarify. It then removes the language on non-renewal, which is a different issue from termination.
Troy,
You need to review SD V. Jones from this last summer and then decide if you want to claim our SD Supreme Court is not an activist Court. It was a rape case in which they read into the statute and changed the actual law.
While your nornal cheerleader position for establishment Republicans is expected, you have appeared to be intelligent enough in the past not to claim the admitted numerous subjects within HB 1234 are in fact one subject. Heck, even Rep Hickey admits the bill should have been broken up into at least three different bills.