When I first read House Bill 1044, I thought I saw amidst the style and form changes a small attack on teachers' labor rights. Reading the bill in the context of other statutes, rules, and practice have me thinking HB 1044 may not wreak much practical havoc in teachers' days.
Two parts of HB 1044 alarmed me:
- Section 10 appears to change who can start the process to take away a teacher's certificate. Current law says only "[t]he school board or governing body employing a teacher or administrator, the professional teachers practices and standards commission, professional administrators practices and standards commission, or the secretary of the Department of Education" may initiate a revocation or suspension proceeding. HB 1044 gives "any person" that right.
- Section 17 authorizes the Department of Education to "assess all or part of its actual costs for the proceeding" against a teacher who loses his or her certification in such a complaint proceeding.
Section 10 seems to open the door for grouchy parents to bypass local school board protocols and go after not just a teacher's job but statewide employability. However, as I understand from conversations with an education expert who prefers not to be caught cavorting on the blogs, grouchy parents and anyone else already enjoy the right to file complaints against teachers and challenge their certificates at the state level.
Hang on, here's where things get messy. Chapter 13-42 and Chapter 13-43 of state law appear to create separate streams for complaints against teachers. Chapter 13-42, dealing with certification, gives the Secretary of Education authority to certify or decertify teachers. Chapter 13-43, on employment of teachers, creates the Professional Teachers Standards and Practices Commission, which promulgates the Professional Teachers Code of Ethics and a complaint procedure there-around. These two chapters both mention complaint procedures. The Standards Commission's complaint procedure doesn't qualify who can file a complaint; the only relevant language just refers to "any person." The Standards Commission can't yank a certificate, but it can recommend that the Secretary of Education do so.
Existing statute thus seems to create two paths for complaints to the state against teachers: employers can complain directly to the Secretary of Education, while anyone can complain to the Standards Commission. In practice, the Department of Education has been directing all complaints from anyone to the Standards Commission. HB 1044 seeks to clarify and codify that there is one path, open to any all, to challenge a teacher's certificate in Pierre.
To my concern about maintaining a local filter for complaints, we can turn to existing Standards Commission rules. The Standards Commission specifies that "The formal written complaint shall identify the sections of the code of professional ethics alleged to be violated, the name and position of the individual involved, and local efforts to resolve the problem." That current rule requires anyone bringing an ethics complaint against a teacher to the state to explain what they've done at the local level—conversations with the teacher, formal complaints to the school administration—to address the alleged problem. This rule allows the Standards Commission to see if complainants have exhausted local remedies and turn them back if they haven't. That rule would appear to cover the complaint procedure post-HB 1044, but if it doesn't, Section 3 of HB 1044 grants the Standards Commission rule-making authority over "procedures for denial or nonrenewal of a certificate and disciplinary proceedings and assessment of costs," meaning the Standards Commission could easily work up a parallel rule on local protocols.
Section 10 clarifies that what look like two paths for complaints are really the same path and will be treated as a single path post-HB 1044. Section 17, on costs, makes a similar clarification. Complaints to the Standards Commission (Chapter 13-43) are heard as contested cases, a legal term that subjects those complaints to a whole nother chapter, SDCL 1-26. That chapter states that any professional who gets a ding on his or her license may be charged part or all of the cost of the proceedings that led to that ding. Evidently teachers who get dragged through the Standards Commission wringer, are found to have been naughty, and suffer some action against their certificate are already subject to paying for their complaint procedure. HB 1044 simply makes clear that, yes, the existing rules on cost recovery apply to complaints on teachers, whether those complaints go to the Secretary or the Standards Commission. It's all the same process.
Section 17 looked a little unfair in subjecting the decertified teacher to those costs but not an unsuccessful complainant for bringing bogus charges. But those proceedings costs, says my expert acquaintance, are usually limited to fees for publishing legal notice of the action. If there is no action, there's nothing to publish, and thus no cost to impose on a complainant.
I'm glad I'm not the Department of Education expert who has to explain House Bill 1044 to legislators. The bill goes to House Education, probably next week. I encourage Chairwoman Sly, Vice-Chair Johns, and my District 8 man Mathew Wollmann to ask the DOE reps lots of questions to make sure HB 1044 is as relatively harmless as it now seems and that there is not some lurking threat to teachers' due process rights.
Update 15:13 CST: I was curious just how often the Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission fields complaints about teachers and how often the state takes adverse action against teachers' certificates. The Department of Education provided me with the following relevant responses:
- The Standards Commission received 15 complaints in 2014.
- 10 of those 15 complaints came from members of the public. Superintendents and the DOE itself have initiated complaints against teachers.
- DOE confirms that, as indicated above, ARSD 24:08:04:01:01 authorizes "any person" to initiate a complaint to the Standards Commission.
- Of the 15 complaints in 2014, six have gone to hearing.
- Based on complaints to the Commission, the Secretary suspended or revoked two teaching certificates in 2012, one in 2013, and three in 2014.
There are substandard teachers in South Dakota, as there are substandard attorneys, physicians, bridgebuilders, and legislators.
But I can't believe that giving the SD Secretary of Education the authority to pull certification from teachers ... without formal review and local control ... will do anything to improve the quality of education in the state that pays the lowest teacher salaries and near the bottom in per-pupil expenditures.
When I first applied for a SD teaching certificate back in the 1980s, SDDOE would not take a personal check ... they had to have a money order. I thought then ... you trust me with your children, but you don't trust my personal check?
South Dakota still treats professional educators as temporary help. Until legislators and voters can overcome that mentality, they will get what they pay for.
Listening to a North Dakota radio talk show earlier this week the topic of conversation was a very similar bill to what you describe here that was introduced this year in their legislative session. Very similar proposals in separate states make me suspect some sort of national push behind this proposal. Paint me suspicious.
So now like with the occasional French math we read on blogs, we have all the teacher alarmists howling at the moon in the blogging at https://madvilletimes.com/2015/01/hb-1044-makes-it-easier-to-take-away-teachers-certificate/ and stirring up the pots and probably making the legislatures hate the law that might actually help teachers.
1.0.4.4 is good or your government wouldn't be doing it to you.
Perhaps, just as Cuba needs to abandon their mentality of always being under siege, the school teachers union needs to realize that not everything is a booga-booga man lurking in the bush as an attack on them.
you might be right grud but teachers in this state have been under siege for so long it's hard not to see a boogaman under every bush.
I've seen my wife go through and I saw my dad do it. Cory can attest to that
Want to figure out if this is just another FU to teachers in this state or if it has actual merit in serving the public?
Change the wording to include every state employee, every state contractor and every state legislator.
Just guessing it would die in committee on voice vote.
Owen, it is indeed hard to coax the bunny out to eat a kibble from your hand if you've been pretending to slap it between the ears for the last hour.
Wayne F, we do have a long way to go in getting South Dakota teachers the respect they deserve. This bill doesn't move us at all in that direction... but on second reading and discussion, I'm inclined to think it doesn't change the status quo much, either. The Secretary already has exclusive authority to revoke a certificate; the Secretary maintains that authority in this bill. The due process appears to remain the same, unless I've missed a clause: complaint is submitted, Standards Commission hears and recommends, Secretary decides.
Grudz, I am always open to further information that will help me come to a better understanding. Il est toujours possible, que j'ai tort. Rare, mais possible. Q:-)
Ah, but Jana, the comparison gets shaky, because we're talking about a professional license, not employment. Do state employees have more due process to avoid termination than teachers have to avoid either termination or loss of certificate?
Good point Cory. What other occupations need a license from the state? We could limit it to that.
Plumbers need a license. Include plumbers.
I think electricians need a license. Many of the healthcare professionals do. Also hair stylists, massage therapists, manicurists, etc.
I believe that anyone working in occupations that works on tasks that have to meet building codes, or health codes have to have a license.
Several of the human services professionals need a state license. Psychologists, Social Workers, Child Protection staff, parole officers, many of the counselors whether working for an agency or in private practice.
I filed a complaint against a "health care professional and all that happened was that I got a letter that said, "After a thorough investigation your case was closed." No hearing, no nothing.I'd like "health care providers" of the higher echelons to be held to a higher standard.Certainly higher than a teacher because they have my life and health in their hands.
CLCJM, that's interesting. The same thing can happen with the Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission. Nothing in current statute or in HB 1044 requires the Commission to hold a hearing. They can review the complaint and decide it does not merit a hearing.
As for relative standards, don't teachers hold the life and health of the republic in their hands?
There are all sorts of licensed professions in the state. The South Dakota Board of Technical Professions licenses "architecture, engineering, land surveying, landscape architecture, and petroleum release services."
When there are no teachers they will probably have a two year degree to suffice.That way all is gained they will say .
Years ago, you only needed a 2 degree to teach, and we had awesome teachers. Half of those college classes you take now are a joke. I think my Mom only had a 2 year degree and she was the best. I know the greatest teachers I had only had a 2 year degree.
Tara, was that your daughter in the news that is the very good basketball player!
Yes
Tara saying they dont pay teachers enough my mom was also.
I believe teachers and administrators show be on the same percentage point nationwide. Administrators are 24th and teachers 51st. Meet somewhere in the middle like maybe 39th.