Press "Enter" to skip to content

Daugaard Agnostic on Teacher Shortage; Legislators Peeling Away from Denialism

I guess Governor Daugaard is going to go full-tilt global-warming denialism on South Dakota's teacher shortage:

Instead of offering answers during an appearance on Argus Leader's "100 Eyes" program, the governor asked questions. He also questioned the state's culpability for South Dakota's low teacher salaries.

"Is there a shortage?" Daugaard said Monday. "Maybe in some areas. Is it driven by a salary differential, or is it driven by location, geography? What is it driven by?" [Patrick Anderson, "Teacher Shortage: Questions from Daugaard," that Sioux Falls paper, 2015.01.20]

Is there a teacher shortage? Dakota Wesleyan University president Amy Novak thinks so:

With fewer teachers for students in South Dakota's rural communities, lawmakers and educators are developing a plan to encourage other staff members at those schools to get teaching degrees.

Amy Novak, president of Dakota Wesleyan University in Mitchell, told The Daily Republic on Tuesday that she has been included in talks about legislation that would help paraprofessionals, such as teacher's assistants, already working in rural communities get a bachelor's degree in elementary or secondary education. Novak said Dakota Wesleyan would like to be involved in any effort to revitalize the state's rural communities [Chris Mueller, "Local College Joins Fight Against Teacher Shortage," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2015.01.20].

So does freshman District 14 Rep. Tom Holmes:

The legislation, prepared by State Rep. Tom Holmes, R-Sioux Falls, is still in its early stages. But, essentially, it would provide tuition assistance to those paraprofessionals who agree to teach for at least five years in a rural community.

The legislation comes as a response to a shortage of teachers in South Dakota, which the numbers indicate is likely to get worse in the near future [Mueller, 2015.01.20].

So does District 20 Rep. Tona Rozum:

State Rep. Tona Rozum, R-Mitchell, said she has visited schools in her district, which includes Davison, Aurora and Jerauld counties, and has seen the teacher shortage firsthand.

"There is a shortage," Rozum said. "They need help to get teachers into the system" [Mueller, 2015.01.20].

And so does the Mitchell Daily Republic, whose editor at no point requires Mueller to qualify "teacher shortage" with "alleged" or "purported" or anything else that would support our Governor's feigned agnosticism.

South Dakota is short on teachers. We're not paying them enough to compensate for two generations of gubernatorial and legislative disrespect. We're not paying them enough to compete with other states and other professional opportunities. The Governor may want to ignore that reality, but evidently even members of his own party cannot sustain that denialism. Let's hope Holmes and Rozum can propose honest solutions to this very real problem.

34 Comments

  1. Steve Sibson 2015.01.21

    "legislation that would help paraprofessionals, such as teacher's assistants, already working in rural communities get a bachelor's degree in elementary or secondary education"

    So the definition of a teacher is one with a degree in crony capitalist indoctrination. Who is to say the "paraprofessionals" are already qualified to facilitate Common Core Standards while monitored on camera by CSCOPE.

  2. Moses 2015.01.21

    They would be suckers to stay in a state that doesnt appreciate them.Why trade time when they could make this up in a few years, with a better retirememnt and wages and more resources in another state.One may want to stay , but education majors are few and and far between.

  3. jerry 2015.01.21

    Daugaard is just another John Birch Society card holder that tries to stun the interviewer such silly questions. This bunch usually comes with other nonsense such as "how long is a piece of string", to further try to muddy the waters.

  4. Loren 2015.01.21

    So Gov. Dudley thinks the shortage in rural SD might be more geography than money? I guess folks from all over the nation are flocking to the ND oil fields for the ambiance, the fresh air, the wide open vistas, the mild winters! OR could it be for the money? We report, you decide!

  5. Bill Dithmer 2015.01.21

    Sibby, years ago SD had a two year degree. My mom had one from Springfield. But then again she taught when there were, I think the term was "warrant teachers." They weren't paid in cash, but were given pieces of paper that said they were owed money if there ever was any available. Late 30s early 40s.

    By admitting they want to lower the requirments for teachers they have also admited there is a teacher shortage.

    I guess granting tenure to first year teachers wasnt enough to attract the people they needed.

    The Blindman

  6. JeniW 2015.01.21

    The easiest way to deal with the Common Core issue is for school districts to stop accepting state and federal funding, and let each school district come up with its own funding sources.

    By discontinuing of accepting state and federal funding, that eliminates any and all strings that are attached to the funding.

    Best wishes to the school districts, parents, and other citizens to come up with enough money to end accepting state/federal funding, and provide enough money to pay teachers, books, supplies, janitorial services and etc.

    Gov. Daugaard does not view education as a high priority, and nothing will change his stance until enough people (including the legislators,) push back.

  7. Wayne B. 2015.01.21

    Here's the rub though - I haven't watched the 100 eyes interview yet, but this part of the article gives me pause:

    "South Dakota may be last in average teacher salary, but it's 39th in per-student spending, according to federal data from the 2010-11 school year. The governor used this information to defend the role of state lawmakers in setting local teacher salaries, which he described as indirect."

    Last week, I talked about how school districts run sizable surpluses.

    If teacher pay were linked directly to state student allocation, then we ought to be 39th in teacher pay, not 51st. Until we figure out what's causing that disconnect, and control for it, does it make sense to increase state spending without the guarantee of the outcome desired?

  8. tara volesky 2015.01.21

    Wayne is correct. Remember the school boards hold the purse strings. I don't think it's good for teacher moral that administrators getting big pay raises while teachers get a pittance. With all the capital outlay funds schools have been storing up, they should be able to use some of the extra money for teachers salaries. Better yet, tax reform. High property taxes are hurting the economy.

  9. Steve Sibson 2015.01.21

    JeniW, back in the day I was in elementary school, we got no federal funding. And I believe it was in the mid 90s when the state stepped in. So local funding of education can happen, but not until after federal and state regulations are done away with.

  10. Steve Sibson 2015.01.21

    "Until we figure out what's causing that disconnect, and control for it"

    I have already figured and have been explaining it on this blog for some time. It is the crony capitalists take over of education. They could not have done it without big government. My previous comment provides the solution.

  11. tara volesky 2015.01.21

    Steve, when are you going to announce for school board?

  12. JeniW 2015.01.21

    All Daugaard has to do is tell the appropriate person that SD no longer needs/wants to receive federal dollars for education. If the federal funding is done by direct deposit, the governor can reimburse the federal government.

    Each school district, or even each school can refuse to accept money from the state or feds.

    What regulations are there that are not attached to money?

  13. Steve Sibson 2015.01.21

    Daugaard is not going to do that. He is a tax and spend liberal.

  14. JeniW 2015.01.21

    That would mean that either the school district, or the individual schools would need to stop accepting the state/federal funding.

    What that would mean, is that the public schools in effect would become private schools, and not subject to as many, or no regulations.

  15. Steve Sibson 2015.01.21

    Doesn't have to private. The state pays over $400 million to education. Reduce the state sales tax by 2% and let the local school district charge 2% in sales tax and the strings vanish. Better yet, increase the sales tax in large districts 1% and small districts 3 or 4%. I don't mind tax increases that are local and thereby retain local control. That way the crony capitalists don't get their greedy hands on it, because the Pierre would lose control over that $400 million. Tell the state to keep their regulations, we keep the money.

  16. JeniW 2015.01.21

    The trick now will be to convince the schools and/or school districts to adopt your plan.

    Would Mitchell be willing to make the change?

    It looks like the area around Cabelas's is developing well, which means there is money coming into Mitchell. The lot in Mitchell where the trailers are built is full, which may indicate a healthy market for those trailers/mobile homes, so maybe Mitchell is financially secure enough to not accept the state funding for the schools in the area?

  17. caheidelberger Post author | 2015.01.21

    Wayne, it makes perfect sense to increase spending if school districts are going to go without qualified teachers right now because of a teacher shortage that the Governor refuses to admit exists and can be solved by his action.

    Actually, I am quite interested in a good explanation of that 51st/39th disconnect.

  18. o 2015.01.21

    "Actually, I am quite interested in a good explanation of that 51st/39th disconnect." You and I both. I cannot tell if it is true or if it has Colbert Truthiness.

    Here is one implication I see to the Governor's stance:

    Raising SD teachers to 39th in salary would be about $8,400 more per teacher for every teacher in SD. That multiplied by the number of SD teachers puts the total at just over the $77 million dollar mark (someone should check my math on that). Is there really $77 million dollars being spent every year by local boards that should/could go to salaries?

    Is the implication from the Governor that our local education associations should negotiate $8,000 per teacher raises because the money "is there?" If the board says no, and teachers go to impasse, will the DOL back the Governor's implication and say that the board MUST give that amount to the teachers? Finally would the Governor give the Education Associations binding arbitration to force those $8,000 raises (current law allows boards to choose not to follow DOL findings)?

  19. tara volesky 2015.01.21

    o, you did your research. Communities need to elect pro-teacher school board members. It makes sense if SD is 39th per student, then they should be 39th in teacher salaries and 39th in administration salaries instead of 24th.

  20. Donald Pay 2015.01.21

    You guys seem to be flailing around here. Capital Outlay is a separate fund that is meant to stash money over time for needed repairs, upgrades, new schools, and expensive equipment. It is supposed to grow and get relatively large. If it didn't taxpayers would be hit with a lot of volatility when big items needed to be replaced. It is illegal to use Capital Outlay for General Fund purposes, though there is always a push and pull about what is considered "capital outlay."

    The 51/39 issue. South Dakota pays teachers poorly on average, but in many areas of the state classrooms have far fewer students per teacher.

    Steve's idea would devastate small districts and would violate the state Constitution. It would never happen.

    Federal education dollars amount to about 14 percent of the total education dollars in South Dakota. Local dollars are about 55 percent, with state picking up most of the rest. South Dakota state government's share of education dollar, when compared to other states, is pitiful. While the local share is about equivalent to other neighboring states, and the federal share is a bit more (tribal and federal lands and facilities bump it up), the state's effort is about 50 percent of what other nearby states contribute to K-12 education.

    Most of the state's mandates in education were eliminated in the 1990s. There is a very small state cost to complying with federal education grants. Compared to the amount of money SD takes in, it would take a financial fool who would turn down that money. So,
    don't put it past Daugaard to take Sibby's advise.

  21. Wayne B. 2015.01.21

    Ah, but whose spending do we increase? State? County?

    Should the state increase spending to become 35th in the country on a per student basis? What guarantees do we have the schools will then pay their teachers more?

    It's starting to scare me that I like Sibby's idea of the state fully abrogating its role in funding education, reducing its tax intake, and allowing counties to tax more in place of it.

    Maybe it's a good thing that's unconstitutional :)

    Cory, let's consider our old stomping ground.

    $10.7 MM Revenue
    $9.6 MM Expenses ($5.6 MM on salary)
    $1.1 MM Net Profit (11% of expenses, or about 40 days cash on hand)
    $944 net profit per student

    80 total teachers.

    If we wanted to increase all 80 teachers' salaries by $8,000 that'd be:
    $640,000 in salary increase
    Say $20,000 for retirement @ 3%
    Another $50,000 for FICA
    Let's say another $20,000 for other expenses (unemployment, disability, etc.)

    Total bill $730,000

    Still a surplus. Sure, it's tight margins, but these are governmental agencies, not for profit organizations.

  22. tara volesky 2015.01.21

    Almost all of the other states pay teachers more because they have a corporate and personal income tax. But, their property taxes are much lower. Nobody wants to tax the rich in SD.

  23. Donald Pay 2015.01.21

    What I meant to say is that on a per student basis SD local (property tax) revenue is equivalent to neighboring states. As a percent of total education spending, it is vastly higher, mostly because the State of South Dakota isn't contributing as much as other states to education.

  24. Steve Sibson 2015.01.21

    'It is illegal to use Capital Outlay for General Fund purposes, though there is always a push and pull about what is considered "capital outlay."'

    They have made exceptions to that in state law and they have refused to let them sunset.

    I agree that my plan would be a problem for small schools. Solved by combining grades, thus reducing teachers. When I was in the one room country school, we had one teacher for 8 grades.

    Once you combine those two issues and drive around the state, you will see many small schools with newer brick and mortar.

  25. Steve Sibson 2015.01.21

    "violate the state Constitution"

    So cities that charge sales tax is unconstitutional?

  26. Donald Pay 2015.01.21

    Article 8. § 1. Uniform system of free public schools. The stability of a republican form of government depending on the morality and intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schools wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all; and to adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education.

    The Legislature has a "duty" in regard to education. This is far stronger than a "power" or "authority" granted to the Legislature. I believe education might be the only "duty" given to the Legislature. Further, it must "maintain a general and uniform system of public schools." Local control is fine to a point, but when it interferes with the Legislature's duty, it has to give way.

    Also, your tax scheme would have to be initiated or pass a super majority vote in the Legislature. I doubt the Legislature would go for it, but maybe a vote of the public would enact it.

  27. JeniW 2015.01.21

    Is the Common Core standard a part the funding and teacher availability discussion?

    If schools do not want to adopt the Common Core standards, what is their option if not to refuse state funding?

  28. Owen 2015.01.21

    "legislation that would help paraprofessionals, such as teacher's assistants, already working in rural communities get a bachelor's degree in elementary or secondary education"

    "So the definition of a teacher is one with a degree in crony capitalist indoctrination. Who is to say the "paraprofessionals" are already qualified to facilitate Common Core Standards while monitored on camera by CSCOPE."

    Steve my wife is a middle school teacher and have you been in her class and has she taught crony capitalist indoctrination? Of course not. Have you sat in a class day after day in Mitchell and heard them teach crony capitalist indoctrination? I'm guessing no.
    So in other words, like everything else, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Just like your buddy the conservative Daugaard.

  29. caheidelberger Post author | 2015.01.21

    Interesting chart. Is there any way to run a correlation on the data and lay a trendline across those dots? Are we seeing a negative correlation between expenditure and scores in SY 2013? Or, looking at the year-to-year, class-to-class bounce in each school district, do we conclude other factors outweigh school budget in test scores?

  30. Donald Pay 2015.01.21

    These sort of charts aren't that compelling. Lots of scatter, very little obvious trend, but I wouldn't expect one. "Expenditures" obscures a lot of information, including class size and staff teaching experience, availability of programs, availability of advanced classes, etc. Outcomes, such as ACT scores, obscures the number of students taking the test and demographics of the students (poverty, etc.).

    I've been looking at this sort of information for SD for twenty years. What you will find, especially in the smaller districts, is a lot of "bounce," as Cory says. You expect more variability from year to year in smaller districts, just as a matter of statistical artifact. Sometimes small districts go from high scores to mediocre scores in subsequent years, while their expenditure doesn't move much.

  31. Steve Sibson 2015.01.22

    "I doubt the Legislature would go for it, but maybe a vote of the public would enact it."

    Donald, perhaps we need to visit what the Constitutional definition of education is. Is it promoting sex, running around a gym, creating human capital for the globalists....

    And I agree that my idea will not fly with those whose job is to support crony capitalism, and not support the Constitutions.

  32. Wayne B. 2015.01.22

    Thanks for the link, SuperSweet!!!

    I poked around the SDDOE data website.

    Check out this!

    Data on General Fund balances for all school districts from 2011 to present:

    2011: $197 Million
    2012: $210 Million
    2013: $244 Million
    2014: $235 Million

    Sioux Falls had the most with $95 Million socked away over those four years.
    Shannon was the worst, being $3 Million in the hole (McLaughlin was -$1.5 Million, and Lemmon was -$460k. Everyone else had positive balances over the four year period).

    That excludes the Impact Aid Ending Funds.
    That excludes Capital Gains.
    JUST general funds.

    If "o" is correct that we only need $77 Million per year to increase teacher wages by $8,000 each, then we don't need to raise any new money.

    From 2011 - 2014, our school districts have squirreled away $888 Million taxpayer dollars.

    Cory, I think there's proof of our disconnect between 39th in State per student funding to local schools and 51st in teacher pay. There's no point pouring more antifreeze into the radiator if there's a leak halfway up. Sure it'll look full for a while, but it'll bleed out when I'm cruising down the highway.

    Am I missing something on why school districts need to continually add to their rainy day funds?

Comments are closed.