Governor Dennis Daugaard tells young people that they need to pick majors that will pay off financially. Then he and his party tell young people they need to go into teaching for love, not money.
In that contradiction, something's got to give. In this case, love gives:
The low salary numbers [are] a big reason for low student interest in education programs at the university level, said USD President Jim Abbott.
“Students are well aware South Dakota teacher salaries are low,” President Abbott said. “As a result, they often choose another field of study, or upon graduation, seek teaching jobs in other states [ASBSD, "Potential Retirees Outpace Potential Teachers," Bulletin, December 2014].
President Abbott's assessment comes under statistics showing 1,004 certified South Dakota teachers, about a ninth of the state K-12 teaching force, eligible for retirement this year and only 726 potential teachers graduating from our state's teacher training programs in 2015. Only 577 teacher candidates are in the chute to graduate in 2016.
Well, at least I'm heading into an applicant's job market. Thank you, Governor Daugaard, for keeping my competition low!
I find it mind boggling how the ruling party twists and turns things to try to spin it and keep our low info voters convinced how great of a job they are doing.
Guv DD's Edict #1: "It's good to be The King!"
Guv DD's Edict #2: "If I say it, therefore it can only be so."
I remember the younger, nicer, more connected DD. Remember the commercial that talked about all those jobs he had farming, driving truck, sweeping floors, singing in the opera, raising money for poor kids and their moms? Maybe DD thinks other people should also have a hard time holding their jobs.
Your future as a teacher is very limited as government thinks that all education should be computer based.
How many times have bills been introduced for charter schools in SD? From the bit of research I have done it looks like quite a few times, but nothing has passed. Do charter schools have to have certified teachers or just one or two to oversee teacher's aides? If, like Mike B indicated, computer learning is used, less teachers would be needed.
Seems I have read the Republicans want to privatize education.
Gayle, yo could be right,,, because Repubs/Conservatives like going into bizness "where the money is"--the taxpayer's--notably recently incarcerating the public's less desirables in prisons etc etc doing for gov't to make a profit in servicing the military and other gov't agencys....
Just glad daughter saw through the Rounds administration then do nothing came in and she left and got a great teaching job on the east coast, and doing well thanks Gov.
Gayle, I'm not sure how often the SDGOP has floated charter school legislation. SDCL 13-15A authorizes pilot charter schools for Indian students, but the state still doesn't allow charter schools elsewhere.
"Charter schools" refers to a broad range of schools with a broad range of educational philosophies and a broad range of governance structures. It's not just one thing.
In some states, charter schools can have governance systems separate from the elected school board. So, for example, a college or a non-profit or for-profit group would obtain state funding based on an approved "charter," which specifies how the school is governed, what it's educational philosophy is, etc. It gets state funding and competes with the local school district for students.
In other states only school districts sponsor charter schools. So, for example, a group of parents and/or educators come to the district with an idea about educational philosophy or rigor or subject matter, submit and get approval for their "charter" and obtain some funds from the district to open a school. This is a often a way for districts to pilot new ideas in education or offer options that might be helpful for addressing problem areas, such as education of poor or minority students.
I have no problem with districts setting up charter schools, if the school addresses a valid educational concern, and the district maintains some control over the school. There are costs associated with charter schools. With current funding, it is not possible for most districts to experiment with charter schools, and using outside funds to run the school runs into fairness and Constitutional issues. Also, small districts can't set up charters. They don't have enough students. Does that cause an unequal educational system between large districts, who have the flexibility to use charters, and small districts, who can't?
Charters set up outside the district lack adequate accountability, and recreates a second system that reduces the economic efficiency of the school district. If you are concerned about increased taxes, you wouldn't want to create and fund two schools when one would do the job. You would create a lot more schools needing a "small school" bonus, and eat up more tax money.
I might be mixing up charter schools with home schooling co-ops. A number of years ago since I was researching schooling methods.
Moses, I'm glad your daughter is doing well. I regret that we were unable to make it worth her while to contribute her talents to our state.
I like Don's succinct analysis of the enormous range of "charter" school options by state. Most states that passed it early did so for social, not educational, reasons and a lot of poorly drafted laws have lead to bizarre results.
My favorite example is Arizona, where the ultra-right legislature created charter schools as an end-around to bans on religion teaching, unions, whole grain bread and a host of other wackiness. They wrote a bad law with few guidelines, then handed a higher per-pupil state funding contribution to charters. Hundreds of public school districts have now converted to charter schools to get the higher funding, then kept everything else as business as usual.
Ooops.