In most states, governors would read winning over 70% of the vote for a second term as a mandate for bold, visionary leadership. In South Dakota, such a "mandate" gets us what Republican Senator Tim Rave (R-25/Baltic) calls a "vanilla budget."
Amidst the peanuts sprinkled on the fiscal same-old same-old yesterday, Governor Dennis Daugaard made no mention of teacher pay. Everybody and their ugly sister has been talking about teacher pay, but not the Governor. He tells Patrick Anderson he probably won't support legislative action to dig South Dakota's teacher pay out of its perpetual bottom-of-the-nation hole.
Anderson reports the Governor's lack of vision in the context of new data from the National Council on Teacher Quality that confirms analyses I've offered on this blog for years: South Dakota's cost of living (which last I checked was higher than the national average!) does not make up for our abysmal teacher pay. NCTQ looks at specific districts nationwide, not statewide averages, and looks only at Sioux Falls, one of the best-paying districts in the state. NCTQ finds that even the highest paid teachers in Sioux Falls get far less pay than their most-experience counterparts elsewhere, even after adjusting for cost of living:
The average max teacher's salary of the 113 districts in the study is $75,000, or $68,000 when adjusted for regional living costs. A teacher who works 30 years in the Sioux Falls district makes about $58,000 on average, or $59,450 when adjusted for cost-of-living, according to the NCTQ [Patrick Anderson, "Teacher Pay in S.F. Low in Region," that Sioux Falls paper, 2014.12.03].
Anderson pulls the lifetime earnings NCTQ calculates for teachers in our region and finds Sioux Falls offering the least competitive career deal:
| Lifetime Teacher Earnings, in Millions $US (NCTQ, based on AY 2014) |
||
| City | Adjusted | Unadjusted |
| Sioux Falls | $1,650,000 | $1,600,000 |
| Des Moines | $1,970,000 | $1,800,000 |
| Fargo | $1,960,000 | $1,850,000 |
| Minneapolis | $1,840,000 | $2,050,000 |
| St. Paul | $2,030,000 | $2,240,000 |
Go teach in St. Paul instead of Sioux Falls, and you put $640,000 more in your pocket over your lifetime. Adjust cost of living, and you still come out $380,000 ahead. That's three, maybe four more kids through college. That's a nice vacation house in Spearfish.
Governor Daugaard and his GOP facilitators in the Legislature will keep squeezing teachers with guilt, hoping teachers will ignore both their own financial self-interest and the Governor's lack of vision for improving their pay. Teachers like me who remain willing to work in that atmosphere of disrespect will sacrifice hundreds of thousands of dollars in practical purchasing power.
Cory, just curious, how many SD teachers belong to the Teacher's Union? Is it optional? Does the Union ever try to deal with this apparently perennial problem? If so, with whom do they negotiate? Because it looks like somethin' ain't workin'... Could it be the Union?
Maybe local school boards who have granted their school administrators to be 24th in the nation for wages can do the same with their teachers. It calls for some critical and creative thinkers. The voters said NO to teachers salaries. Just look at the election results. It happens every election cycle. So instead of throwing more money at the problem, maybe there needs to be discussion as to why we are 39th for money per student and 24th for administrative salaries, but 51st in teacher pay?
They'll raise taxes for roads but not for teacher s teaching their children. Doesn't make sense.
Bill teachers don't have to join the umoon and the union has little power because they can't strike.
Got to love the petty politics. Teachers are viewed as a dependable Democratic constituency; therefore, they must be punished.
Bill,
To answer part of your question, all negotiations are done locally. Spearfish teachers negotiate with Spearfish board of education. Wall teachers with Wall BOE and so on.
Negotiations are a farce because South Dakota lacks binding arbitration, so any school board can declare an offer to be its "last, best offer" and impose it. There is a fact finding and reconciliation process but a school board can reject those findings.
The problem is that people have heard the cost of living argument so much they believe it despite facts to the contrary. In fact, the more facts that come out against the belief that South Dakota has a low cost of living, the more stubbornly people tend to believe it.
I would not condemn administrators about what they earn. We really should not view them as being the enemies of the teachers.
They earned their degree by fulfilling the requirements of their degree, paid to earn their degree. Insisting that administrators be paid less, is like expecting medical doctors to be paid at the same or less than a registered nurse.
IMO, it is not the administrators who are at fault, it is the viewing that the teachers' pay as it is at the moment, is acceptable.
If people really want to increase teachers' pay, they need to be willing to put put their money where their mouth is, for now people for a variety of reasons are not able or willing to do that.
Thanks Owen and Kal Lis. So which is it... it is illegal for teachers to strike?...or that there is no legally binding obligation on the School Boards' part to negotiate, reach a settlement, and honor the terms of the agreement?
Teacher morale is low because they are not given the freedom to teach the way they were designed to teach. We have a new fad, one size fits all. There are many teachers with advanced degrees just like administrators, but they don't even come close to what administrators make.
I am sure that their are teachers who have advanced degrees, but the duties and responsibilities of the administrators are not the same as those of teachers. That is like comparing an orange to a banana.
If the school districts do not want to adhere to the guidelines of the No Child Left Behind, Common Core, or any other standards, they need to become independent of state and federal funding that has those strings attached.
If the state had not wanted to implement the federal requirement of seat belt laws, the state could have decided not to accept the federal funding for the interstate/highways.
For those who object to Common Core, you either need to put your children into private schools, or home school them. Yes, parents would still have to pay property taxes, but everyone who rents or is buying, or owns a home pays property taxes regardless if they have children or not.
Bill, it is against the law for teachers to strike in SD:
SDCL 3-18-10. Strikes prohibited--Right to submission of grievance. No public employee shall strike against the State of South Dakota, any of the political subdivisions thereof, any of its authorities, commissions, or boards, the public school system or any other branch of the public service. Provided, however, that nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to limit, impair, or affect, the right of any public employee to the expression or communication of a view, grievance, complaint, or opinion on any matter related to the conditions or compensation of public employment or their betterment with the full, faithful and proper performance of the duties of employment."
I think the duties and responsibilities are greater for teachers than for administrators, just like duties and responsibilities are greater for Drs., than administrators. Both deal with children and patients and families on a daily basis. Administrators deal with money and policy. I don't think superintendents, college presidents and administrator should get paid more than the Governor. Just my opinion.
BCB, okay, thanks! Do you know when that law was passed?
http://www.cepr.net/documents/state-public-cb-2014-03.pdf
See chart 3 page 8. Looks like there are only 12 states where teacher strikes are legal. I wonder if having that ability has resulted in teacher salary increases in those states?
Okay, I see here that when ranked by average salary, 10 of the 12 states where teachers can strike are in the top 24 wage earning states. Only Colorado and Montana are in the bottom half, but still relatively higher on the chart than other states. Of course, SD as noted by pretty much everybody is on the very bottom. Tsk.
http://www.teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state/
Teachers are suppressed in SD.
Tara, that must be discouraging. I hope that those who are looking for an alternative occupation are able to get employment that is more financially and morally rewarding.
Bill, according to the LRC site that law was passed in 1969.
Okay, long time ago then. Interesting. Thanks BCB. Sounds like our teachers in SD have been essentially powerless for 45 years.
Interesting correlation, Bill! And thanks for handling Bill's questions, Owen, Kallis, and BCB. All three put the facts together well. We teachers have no legal leverage and, seemingly, no political capital.
And on the birthdate of that law, Bill: when I circulated petitions to refer HB 1234 in 2012, a retired teacher told me South Dakota was last in salary back in the 1960s... pre-dating the strike ban?
Pretty sure every wealthy person in SD has at least one K-12 teacher who helped them imagine that someday they could be where they are today, and then gave them the tools to do it. Can teachers run for political office Cory? Can they be on city councils, county commissions and school boards? Hold a seat in State Legislature? Or are those rights also restricted? (I'm starting to see why my son quit being a teacher.... oh, he still has music students, he's just not in the school system any more. Now I see why. Thanks all!)
Does this mean Sibby has been right all along?
Teachers can serve in the Legislature and on city councils. Yes Larry, Sibby is right.
Bill, Tara is right: K-12 teachers have the right to run for political office. Mel Olson from Mitchell ran and served well. But Mel Olson was an unusual teacher who was not afraid to stick his neck out. Many other teachers seem to live in fear of political retaliation for the slightest bit of partisanship.
Teachers and other employees of the Regental system cannot serve in the Legislature and keep their jobs beyond the beginning of the first fiscal year for which they have the chance to vote on bills.
Well, Cory, that looks like the teachers' only avenue of activism. Get involved in community politics and change the system from the inside out. "Teachers of South Dakota unite! You have nothing to loose. You already lost it."
What is Sibby right about again? I forget. Homeschool? What?
Hey, wasn't there a table or a chart somewhere on how much money each local school board was holding in reserve? Seems like there were some pretty serious dollars being ratholed there. What's up with that?
My daughter's favorite teacher is Mel Olson. He challenges the students and allows them to express themselves. Very outside the box and uses his creativity and critical thinking skills unlike common core. Just because you are not good in cc math and English literature does not define you or your future.
Sibby stands for the common folks.
You mean like a farmer, Tara? Sibby is out standing in his field?
South Dakota is one of the lowest paying states in the Union for most occupations. Teachers are only being paid equal to other occupations.
Tenure has allowed no performers to keep there jos while taking jbs away from qualified teachers that challange students.
Schools need to become less top heavey and move that money to teachers. Many school administrators make over 6 figures,.
The more money we throw at education the worse it seems to get.
Time for a major over haul and eliminate tenure.
You got that right Sam2. Cut from the top down. That would solve a lot of problems.
I disagree with you Tara, Steve S. does not stand for common folks. He only stands for a select and elite few.
There are a lot of people who are "common people" who are not Christians, and/or not "true Christians" according to his definition/criteria.
Steve is entitled to his opinions and beliefs, just as we all are, but he does not represent "common folks," and to his credit, I have never read that that he feels that he is representing the common folks.
Steve is from Mitchell and stands for anti-establishment cronyism. He is against the special interests that use taxpayers money for their pet projects. The chamber, mayor and school board are not fond of him because he exposes cronyism in Mitchell.
Sam 2 is confused about "tenure" for teachers in SD. There is no "tenure" for SD teachers. They can be fired or non-renewed for any arbitrary reason during the first 4 years of teaching. After they have successfully taught for 4 years they have a right to due process before being arbitrarily fired.
SDCL 13-43-6.3 provides: "Nonrenewal of teacher's contract. Until a teacher is in or beyond the fourth consecutive term of employment as a teacher with the school district, a school board may or may not renew the teacher's contract. The superintendent or chief executive officer shall give written notice of nonrenewal by April fifteenth but is not required to give further process or a reason for nonrenewal.
After a teacher is in or beyond the fourth consecutive term of employment as a teacher with the school district, §§ 13-43-6.1 and 13-43-6.2 apply to any nonrenewal of the teacher's contract. On or before April fifteenth, the superintendent or chief executive officer shall notify the teacher and the school board in writing of the recommendation to not renew the teacher's contract. . . ."
The due process provided for teachers after 4 years requires "just cause" to terminate or non-renew a teacher's contract.
SDCL 13-43-6.1 provides: "Just cause for termination or nonrenewal of teacher. A teacher may 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. A school district may nonrenew a teacher who is in or beyond the fourth consecutive term of employment as a teacher with the school district pursuant to § 13-43-6.3 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."
, and has apparently
I'm not sure I agree with any of Sam2's pronouncements.
1. I know plenty of people in occupations in SD who make the same in SD as they would in many other states. We certainly don't have the lowest paying state, jobs wise in the nation, do we? That seems to me to be the singular distinction of SD Teachers.
Next, tenure. There is much to be said for institutional memory and job security. Until such time as teachers are paid a professional wage, I'll trust peer pressure from teacher to teacher to challenge those who are just holding down a job. Is tenure a big deal to teachers. Seems to me it's one of the only reasons to stay in the job. A form of job security, such as it is.
Administrators making more than the rank and file? It's always an issue, but I'm guessing the income disparity is nowhere near what it is in the private sector, where CEOs earn hundreds of times more than rank and file employees.
And "the more money we throw at education, the worse it gets"... what "more money are you talking about? The topic of this thread is that not enough money is being allocated to education in our state. I've not heard anyone claim that too much is being allocated and is being wasted. Is this really a thing?
I know it is 4 years away, but DD cannot be elected Governor in 2018 unless he gets things changed. so perhaps we have to wait till then to get education some money. it is obvious by his budget proposal that he is not running for office this year. I just wish the GOP would grow some gonads for the good of parents, children, and teachers. it is really sad.
Oh, okay. So SD Teachers don't even get tenure. Wow. Thanks for the bleak news, BCB. ;-)
Correction, teachers cannot be fired during the contract year without just cause during the first 4 years of teaching, but their contracts may be non-renewed for any arbitrary reason during the first 4 years. After 4 years, the contract cannot be non-renewed without just cause as set for in the statute. And as noted above, just cause includes "poor performance," hence Sam 2 is flat out wrong in the belief that "no performers" cannot be terminated due to "tenure."
"South Dakota is one of the lowest paying states in the Union for most occupations. Teachers are only being paid equal to other occupations."
What occupations are you talking about Sam?
"Tenure has allowed no performers to keep there jobs while taking jobs away from qualified teachers that challenge students."
You're wrong here Sam. Tenure offers some protection but teachers can still get fired-I've seen it.
I agree that schools are top-heavy. My dad used to be a superintendent and he taught as well. I wonder how many teach today?
Yes, Bill, activism... and returning Mel Olson to the Legislature.
Sorry, Sam 2, I don't see "tenure" contributing to this problem. Remember, teachers don't really have tenure: any superintendent and board with documentation and spine can decline to renew a non-performing teacher. Continuing contract, which we loosely call tenure, is one of the few remaining protections teachers have from being punished and non-renewed for unpopular political views and activism.
Nor can I ascribe to Tara's frequent thesis that we can solve this problem by cutting administrator pay. Cut superintendent pay in half, and you don't get enough money to boost teacher pay even $500 (I'm really spitballing; that may be an exaggeration), which is an insignificant fraction of the pay deficit described above ($500 bucks over 40 years = $20,000 lifetime, a tenth of the adjusted Sioux Falls–Minneapolis budget). You will also face a superintendent shortage, because no one will take that crappy job for such wages.
I'd have to read up, but I don't think any other state has had to resort to eliminating "tenure" (with or without quote marks) or slashing administrator pay to get their teacher pay to where it is right now. The solution to higher teacher pay does not lie within the labor practices of the school districts. The solution lies in making more money available, just as other states do, instead of just getting by on a shoestring and banking on my and my colleagues' love of teaching to keep the schools open.
I do not understand what it is about administrators that causes people to dislike them. It is the school district that offers the position, they offer a salary, the person accepts the position.
The school districts apparently think there is a need for administrators or they would not hire them.
It's an easy fix, JeniW, with the added merit of being able to demonize some small class of individuals who make more money than we do. That kind of thinking gives legislators and governors cover they don't deserve. We need to lay this problem at our elected officials' feet and demand a political solution.
There are schools in SD where the top end teaches as well as manages, etc. It is a pretty tight budget if that helps much and I wonder what lacks when management is not managing?
.
Teacher salaries always seem to highlight inadequacies in SD education.
.
I'd like to know what occupations in SD pay comparable to similar jobs in states whose teacher pay is what we want? In my mind, it is a fact most pay scales are of a reduced rate state wide in SD.
.
I don't claim SD is a low cost state to live in..
Neither tenure nor unions have kept incompetent teachers in their jobs. I know that in the two small schools I attended growing up in the late '50's and the '60's, there were at least three teachers that had alcohol problems to an extent that it affected their teaching. The reason the administrators or school board didn't fire them was they simply could not replace them. Pay was the issue then and is becoming the issue now.If you have NO ONE to fill the spot, you keep what you have!
On the point that SD is a low paying state - not just for teachers: if SD farmers only received 70% of the national going rate for their crops, there would be an emergency legislative session called to remedy that. That is not at all to single farmers out, in fact choose any profession, welder, plumber, engineer . . . and say that residence in SD results in 30% lost wages and you would have outrage -- tolerance of the perpetuation of the lowest salaries seems reserved for teachers.
The budget address would seem to indicate that not only will SD perpetuate this imbalance, but we will again give our neighbors the opportunity to leave us further behind.
Two myths need to be de-bunked as they often serve as the basis for arguments for low salaries: 1) SD is not a poor state, and 2) SD is not a cheap place to live.
In 2011, South Dakota ranked 17th in the ratio of personal income per student (in average daily attendance): $317,516 of personal income per student. In that same year, SD ranked 13th in personal income - 106% of the nation leverage.
I'd really like to see stats on comparable professions from those states whose teacher salaries you wish for, o. I also said most, not all professions.
.
The highest paid welder I know of in SD makes 20/hour. Engineers are a niche that like attorneys, some are high and others cannot make a living and I know of both.
.
Commodities are apples to cucumbers.
It used to be dat 40 below keep da riff-raff out: now glowbull warming is jes da ticket: right, les?
Give Mel Olson a $25,000 dollar raise, and he would be a hell of a superintendent and still be under $50,000 thousand dollars from what we pay our current superintendent.
Les, unless you are willing to argue and are able to prove that all workers in South Dakota are paid the lowest in the nation in their category, you don't have an argument.
That said, it does look like the SD AVERAGE salary number is among the lowest in the nation. All the surrounding states are higher, and Mississippi is the only one I saw that was lower. Lots of data here. Have fun Les. ;-):
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrcst.htm
Les, on comparable pay scales: the fact that we screw most workers does not justify continuing to screw any subset of workers.
On principals and superintendents teaching: the fact that management would mostly take me out of the classroom is the major reason I will never seek to be principal. (Next reason: taking more ed classes to get certified for admin would be dreary.) Principals originated as the "first teacher," the most experienced, respected member of the faculty given decision-making power. I've suggested a team leadership model where we would replace the principal with a team of the best teachers who would all keep teaching but would share leadership responsibilities for the school. (Note: that plan is no money saver: you still have to compensate those teachers for their increased responsibilities.)
I can see the merits of keeping admins engaged with students in classrooms, but I can also see the management perspective that says management has a unique job and should not have to work on the shop floor. Your best teachers should be able to focus on teaching full-time. Your best managers should be able to focus on managing. It's noble to see the general helping dig the trench, ladle soup in the mess hall, and stand picket with the privates, but it's also somewhat inefficient.
Tara, firing adminstrators and paying teachers half as much to do the same work is more axe-grinding than practical problem-solving. We should pay Mel Olson $25,000 more just for his great teaching, and we should never try to entice him out of the classroom (I feel guilty even suggesting we try to draft him back into the Legislative game; I would happily move the Legislative session to the summer just so he could represent District 20 without missing school).
Interesting point, Cory. To what degree does having Legislative session in the winter shape the demographic and sociographic profile of candidates who can take the necessary time away from their other income earning activities to participate in a partime job in Pierre? Is there a way the job can spread out more evenly throughout the year? Can some, if not most of the job be done online? Would it really be such a bad thing if we made our legislators a little less accessable to the lobbyists? ;-)
If they held the legislatures in the summer we would have a hundred fatcat administrators gathered in one place because they would all ban their teachers from using their summer off to be politicians and make the laws themselves.
Cory, I am just trying to be reasonable. You made a great suggestion on the team teacher approach. Teachers seemed to have lost their voice and status. I believe they need to be respected and looked at as equals to the administrators. The school board and supts should look to the teachers and students for the answers. I have a lot of teacher friends who are fearful of saying anything. Let the teachers speak out and help solve some of these problems. There seems to be a disconnect with the hierarchy.
""""Would it really be such a bad thing if we made our legislators a little less accessable to the lobbyists? ;-)""" There in lies the problem. Legislators with small character blow up like Kurses travel doll when the lobbyists buy buy buy.
.
I just received a survey form from a company I choose to not to work for due to the same concerns. It has hundreds of dollars in prizes listed at the top and then you put your name and address above your comments and multiple choice questions. I bet they score 100%. What ever it takes to score, from school to church to Pierre.
.
When I hear teachers stand with a plan, boldly gather and construct a plan, I'll have a much better attitude towards more money to go with that plan.