The 2014 South Dakota Legislature rejected a variety of calls to improve funding of K-12 education and settled for raising the per-student allocation for our public schools to $4,781.14. That figure is less than what we spent to educate each child five years ago.
KELO calls this money an "extra cushion." Baloney. "Extra cushion" is what you hand me when I'm already sitting on a really cushy chair. The Legislature and Governor are handing K-12 schools a wooden stool with a duct-taped leg.
The Baltic school staff to whom KELO speaks don't sound all that cushioned:
"Having our pay frozen for years is painful but more importantly, we weren't able to get things to our students that they really needed, whether it was textbooks or the technology that we think we need, additional classes that we weren't able to offer. Those things hurt and they hurt students and that's really what it comes down to," [middle school teacher Tara Melmer] Rollinger said.
..."There's a problem with school funding and something needs to be done with it. If we would have just stuck with the 1.6 percent inflationary, schools would have really been in trouble. So I think there is that recognition and hopefully this is the start," Baltic Principal Bob Sittig said [Brittany Larson, "State Aid Increase Provides Extra Cushion for Schools," KELOLand.com, 2014.03.18].
The FY2015 budget isn't an invitation to a gleeful pillow fight; it's a pause in the beatings.
The only "cushion" discussed in the KELO story is Baltic's effort to "cushion" its budget by cutting back on Rollinger's hours:
Last year, Rollinger asked permission to work part-time because she wanted to spend more time at home with her kids. This gave the school district an extra cushion in their budget.
"I went to working 70-percent time. I don't think they would have gone and cut anybody necessarily because this allowed them to cut a little bit of money for the school year," Rollinger said [Larson, 2014.03.18].
Cutting teacher hours is not a cushion. It's a degradation of the school's ability to provide services to children. The Legislature's budget may allow Baltic bring Rollinger's position back to full-time, but that's not a great budget advance deserving celebration in the media and the voting booth; it's a mere return to a stingy status quo ante Daugaard.
p.s.: According to the minutes of the Baltic School Board from July 2, 2013, Baltic's average teacher salary is $36,265, $3,314 less than the statewide average teacher salary reported in the previous school year. Tara Melmer Rollinger, a college-educated professional, makes $25,893. If that's pay for 70% time, bringing her back to full time would cost $36,990.
Baltic's head custodian makes $40,446.24. Baltic's technology coordinator makes $63,173.78, 28% more than the highest paid teacher in the district.
I am not a teacher, but one thing that I have observed is how little most people think of the tremendous job they do. We all want our children to be educated and to be able to use the education they receive at an early age to hopefully advance them to achieve their goals. In other words, we demand professionals to do just that. Why we expect professional treatment to build our children for the future should be less than what we pay a plumber to unclog the drain (both are professional) is beyond me. We expect and we pay a plumber 50 bucks an hour. We expect and we pay an electrician 50 bucks an hour. As they are all critical to the what we expect as flow, why do we think educators are less important and not worthy of a professional wage?
But Daugaard and those idiots in Pierre say we don't have any problems, especially teachers or their wages. For that matter, they say we don't have any wage issues here at all. I'm so sick of the people running this state.
If you want to pay teachers more, how about finding a way other than property taxes to support them? How much should they make anyways? I live in a small town and it has always been the households where both members are teachers that seem to live the most comfortably. Nice house, new vehicles, boat, well clothed kids, good health and retirement benefits. I know this will likely get me attacked here but I think SD teachers do just fine.
Aaron, without attacking you, let me ask why South Dakota teachers "do just fine" making 16% less than their colleagues in North Dakota, or 19% less than in Nebraska, or 30% less than in Minnesota, or 32% less than in Wyoming? (Hint: the answer is not cost of living; the COLI differences aren't that big.)
How much should South Dakota teachers make? I say at least $10,000 more than they do now. That nice round raise would make us 34th in the nation and competitive with our neighbors.
By the way, Aaron, I'll do everything I can to find that $10K pay raise in existing revenue, starting with transferring a whole lot of money from our corporate welfare programs.
"think" ? Really? Then thank a teacher!
How bout taxing the deposits that are skimmed and put into the blind trusts we have in South Dakota. If we are gonna be called a Caribbean banking system, at least help pay for the education of our children. No more free rides for the 1%, they must pay to play.
When people get tired of being urinated upon by Pierre and being told it's rain, they'll do something about it. There seems to be a huge tolerance for this kind of thing in South Dakota. The ones who get hurt by perverted policy decisions in Pierre are kids. No wonder they don't want to stick around for more abuse when they get their high school degree.
Sadly, I've found this to be true as well (about the Cost of Living). When we moved to SD, the ONLY thing that was cheaper (in the comparable items) was pre-K childcare and teacher's salaries (not that I pay for that OOP...). Comparable home, clothing, groceries, gas, etc. But even pre-K childcare was less than half than that in a very suburban out of state area. I like that you've shown comparisons to comparable states though. Those are stark differences in pay IMO. I would also be willing to guess that teachers are more frugal with their money as well. I know that to be the case in my personal experiences knowing MANY teachers. So, they might buy more things (I haven't really seen that to be honest) but they probably scrutinize and prioritize every penny out the door.
Cory, thanks for the detailed follow up. SD teachers can do just fine for the same reason I or anyone else can do just fine even if someone else in the occupation makes more in a different area. I simply look at what they have now and it appears to me they are just fine. I am also college educated and did not make over 20K until I was thirty. So Tara Melmer's salary for her age looks pretty good to me and I doubt I am that much older than her. The fact a state like MN or ND pays more should also be taken into consideration with the resources of the state and what everyone else makes there. http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/average-teacher-salary-compared-to-median-household-income.html
Any way you cut it a household with both members working as teachers is going to be well above the median household income for any place. It is as well inherent we all want to make more and will naturally look to those who may be doing better before we look to the many more who aren't. I have been guilty of this throughout my life and have not yet found it to be beneficial. I'm not cured either.
As to your promise of raising wages with current revenue it sounds as if you are running for office. Is this the case? I wish you luck if so but am wary as I have heard many other promises of spending increasing out of existing revenue before and have yet to see much materialize. I am guessing your proposal of a 10K raise to cost about $100,000,000?
Vincent, perhaps I've given evidence of thinking or possibly I'm just mouthing back right wing and religious blather. Either way I'll first credit my parents but since one of them was a teacher I guess I do actually follow through on your suggestion. Which happens to not be bad one. Many of the people in my community who I look up to are former teachers.
Cory, you turn some vivid phrases! One of my favorite parts of the Times.
"The Legislature and Governor are handing K-12 schools a wooden stool with a duct-taped leg.
"The FY2015 budget isn't an invitation to a gleeful pillow fight; it's a pause in the beatings."
Memorable.
Yes, raising South Dakota's average teacher salary $10,000 would cost about $100 million. (I think we have closer to 9,000 teachers than 10,000, but I enjoy rounds numbers.) Making that amount appear from existing revenue would be extremely difficult without damaging other programs.
One potential source of that funding could come from clearing out some sales tax exemptions. South Dakota currently gives a plethora of favored industries breaks on sales tax that total $582 million. Remove 17% of those exemptions, and we have our raise. Are you game?
That is an interesting chart you provide, Aaron, comparing teacher salaries and median income by state. But what does it tell us? Perhaps more importantly, what does it tell teachers? It tells me that teachers in Minnesota and South Dakota make about $10K less than their states' median incomes. That doesn't change the fact that, for the gal who really wants to teach, Minnesota is more attractive, and that Minnesota places a greater value on teachers along with, apparently, a bunch of other workers.
Furthermore, if we break out Wikipedia, South Dakota ranks 28th for median income. If median income had anything to do with teacher salaries, wouldn't we expect South Daktoa teacher salaries to also rank somewhere close to 28th? The fact that we don't seems to reinforce the idea that we are less willing to expend our wealth on teachers than other states are. Why don't we do that?
That head custodian earns every penny he or she makes.
You are absolutely correcto mundo Grudz. That is not an easy job and neither is educating. Someone educated that custodian and look where he or she is, a professional. Now we need to step up and pay the professionals for educating those that do the work that benefit so many.
I have never heard of the custodians union whining when they get a much bigger raise than they should have. And not whining begets bigger raises.
Wow, they already got a raise Grudz, thank an educator for that, astounding. I think that I am in agreement with you yet again. The educators need to form that perfect union that will allow them to get those higher wages you support.
I've never heard corporate plutocrats whining about getting much bigger raises/bonuses/perks/stocks/etc. than they should have either.
So Grudz, what's your point?
And thanks, Deb! Phraseography is one of my great pleasures.
It's not whining, Grudz. It's pointing out that South Dakota is freeloading, exploiting teachers, taking advantage of their dedication more than any other state does and not paying what they are worth.
Cory, with all these income comparisons we have to be careful not confuse per capita and household. The chart I linked to compared the salary of a single teacher to state's median household income where presumably there are two people with multiple forms of income (perhaps some pension income from a retire/rehire policy but I digress). Anyways does anyone ever really expect a teacher by themselves to make more than an entire household. However, put two teachers (or a preacher and a teacher, sorry I shouldn't be personal ;) together in a household and that household will be well above the median hh income for any state in the country, before benefits.
As far as comparing MN and SD, MN has always paid more and always will and the grass will always look greener on the other side of the fence. Geography very much favors their location. (read the book, 9 Nations of North America for how these things work) My entire life I've heard how much better MN is and at this point I have no explanation for why every SD dem or lib has not already moved there a long time ago. Myself, I prefer fewer crowds, a slower pace of life and a rural landscape which doesn't turn completely black every fall.
Considering funding the hypothetical (right?) teacher pay raise its sounds as if the source has immediately moved from existing revenue to new. It sounds as if you and Mr. Tsitrian wish to begin charging farmers sales tax on seed, feed, fuel and fertilizer. I previously had concern over your idea being funded from property taxes so I really don't think this idea is at all better. How would that work anyway? Say a farmer in Faulkton spends a half million on inputs, pays 20K in sales tax, (there goes his profit margin) does that money go to his own district or could it end up in Sioux Falls? I am definitely not game for this. Bring up crop insurance all you want, it's never the gravy train I hear it described as.
Opps, I somehow hit post before I thoroughly edited my post but I think it looks good enough and intend no offense with anything. If not I can eventually clarify. Thanks again for the response.