Even the slaves to conservative opinion who edit the Rapid City Journal admit that low teacher pay is making it hard for South Dakota schools to fill teaching positions.
Last week’s front-page Journal story on school districts that are having trouble filling open teaching positions was predictable. It has been obvious that South Dakota’s last-in-the-nation teacher pay was having an effect on recruiting teachers.
That is, it was obvious to everyone except state lawmakers.
Last year, the South Dakota Legislature formed an interim committee to study education funding. But the panel was forbidden to examine teacher compensation. Nevertheless, the committee introduced a resolution that would have recognized that the state’s low teacher salaries was creating a teacher shortage. The Legislature rejected the resolution.
What is obvious to everyone is that state lawmakers’ bury-their-heads-in-the-sand approach to teacher salaries is producing a teacher shortage [editorial, Rapid City Journal, 2014.06.29].
Now I know that legislators and the Governor like to pass the buck and say that they don't set teacher salaries, that the local districts do. They are technically correct: state government does not negotiate local teacher salaries or issue local teacher contracts.
But the Legislature could pass some bucks to teachers. Every public school teacher in the state is an eligible member of the South Dakota Retirement System. Every South Dakota teacher has less income to put into retirement than her or his counterparts across the nation. If it wanted to, the South Dakota Legislature could make a special appropriation to the state retirement fund to be divided equally among the accounts of every active public school teacher in South Dakota.
Consider the advantages of such a pension boost:
- Offering a better retirement package may attract new applicants, especially young, financially savvy graduates whose craving for new toys does not keep them from understanding the value of starting to save early.
- Boosting the value of existing state pension plans helps keep experienced teachers in the system.
- The Legislature gets more long-term bang for the buck. Our state investment gurus do a pretty good job of turning our gold into more gold and get paid nice bonuses to do so.
Offering teachers more money for retirement won't pay bills right now (although SDRS members can withdraw funds early, with the usual steep tax penalties). But it is a concrete step the Legislature can take, if it is willing, to compete with other states and other job sectors for good teaching candidates.
Putting money in retirement is a great idea, it will also give the state legislature a fund they could raid the next time things get tough. Raiding retirement plans is a common republican tactic in other states, I'm sure we could get republicans here to get in line on that plan.
Going to have to disagree with you, Cory. Taking low pay for a good retirement is the deal that we old folks make 20-30 years ago. It might--and I emphasize might--work out for me, but I don't think the young'uns will be as lucky.
This ranking has South Dakota as having the 2nd best state retirement fund. http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2013/09/09/20-best-worst-states-for-pension-funding?page_all=1
However, South Dakota is the worst state in the region to make a living. Wyoming has the 10th best retirement system, better salaries, and makes it easier for one to earn a living. West River schools would still lose out to our neighbor to the west.
Further, student loans still need to be repaid. A 1992 graduate could expect to take 7.5 years to pay off an average student loan. Current graduates can expect to be paying off loans for 13.5 years.
Locally, teachers were told that they had a great insurance plan when I started here 20 years ago. Last fall, part of our inservice was spent touring local manufacturing plants. The tour guides at a couple of places told us their insurance package was far better than the school's. (I believe on of the guides was married to a local teacher, but my memory is fuzzy on that point.)
If we add in Tim's valid point, taking low pay now in a place that's tougher to earn a living than elsewhere in the region for the chance of a retirement package that can get raided to build another beef plant that will fail while paying off student loans for nearly 14 years doesn't sound like a deal I'd want to take
Ah, but Tim, to raid SDRS, the Legislature would have to repeal SDCL 3-12-72.3. Repealing that law is just a majority vote away, but they'd have to do it, and I suspect the SDRS trustees would raise holy heck the moment they got wind of such a move.
I will grant Kal Lis's point that paying us Tuesday doesn't buy hamburgers today. Immediate financial needs are why I don't have more in savings right now.
Curious: are teachers hired in the last five years not being offered the same retirement benefits as long-timers?
I'll also admit a pension boost is not as direct as simply raising the per-student allocation $1,000 per child (which would cost us about $120M and could raise each teacher's pay well over $10K). Schools might not put every penny of that PSA increase into teacher salaries, but I'm betting they'd put a majority of the money there, since salaries are a majority of their expenses. But if legislators are going to hide behind the "no guarantee it goes to salaries" excuse, I want to test them with this alternative.
Cory, if things got really tough, like a few years ago, do you honestly think something as simple as a majority vote would stop republicans? They had no trouble balancing the books on the back of education once before, I have no doubt they would do it again.
I think retirement benefits are the same, but I haven't asked. I was referring to health insurance.
If South Dakota were in the top 10 for places to earn a living and teacher pay were ranked 40 instead of 50, the plan would be something I would think about a lot harder.
As an expatriot of SD, teachers' salaries in SD are an embarrassment and laughing stock for outsiders.
Tim, you're right: the Republican Legislature has disregarded the statutory requirement for K-12 funding increases before. But this legal protection of the SDRS is also backed up by tens of thousands of pension plan participants. It's not just a simple majority vote on a cold day in February that would hold them back; it would be serious wrath from voters in November.
Kal Lis is probably right that this proposal gives in too much to the narrative that Republicans have used to make our state a laughingstock (as SuperSweet attests). If we elect a Democratic majority, we can probably talk about raising teacher pay more directly. But in the meantime, can we get any support for a direct pension boost? Would this oplan pry the Republicans away from their talking point of how only local school boards can affect teacher compensation?
Cory, I don't have a problem with the concept, I just don't trust them to do the right thing, but I am sure, if pressured, they will do the "right thing". If you know what I mean. I do agree with Kal, the retirement raises you propose would be a better draw for middle to later aged teachers than for young ones with a pile of loans to pay. Of course that brings up another democrat proposal on high rate student loans that already know they don't like.
Here is an incisive perspective on the national state of education.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-darlinghammond/to-close-the-achievement_b_5542614.html
ex·pa·tri·ate
noun
eksˈpātrēit/
1.
a person who lives outside their native country.
"American expatriates in London"
antonyms: national
adjective
adjective: expatriate
eksˈpātrēit/
1.
(of a person) living outside their native country.
"expatriate writers and artists"
synonyms: emigrant, living abroad, nonnative, foreign, émigré; More
antonyms: indigenous, native
archaic
expelled from one's native country.
verb
verb: expatriate; 3rd person present: expatriates; past tense: expatriated; past participle: expatriated; gerund or present participle: expatriating
eksˈpātrēˌāt/
1.
settle oneself abroad.
"candidates should be willing to expatriate"
Supersweet is right, SD is a laughing stock, except in Mississippi. They love SD for keeping them off the bottom rung.
Instead of pushing for more funding, the approach should be cutting items that have a lower priority than teachers and redirect the monies to salaries.
I don't think there are lower priorities in South Dakota than teachers
Tonight I talked with a woman from Alabama. She said they cheer for Mississippi for the same reason Mississippi cheers for South Dakota.
And just think, the SD Republican Party is responsible for our "fans."
In South Dakota the problem is with the teachers' union. The leadership has put their trust in the SDGOP administration and their implementation of Common Core agenda. The money is going to so-called experts and their command and control data collection system, while they demote teachers to facilitators.