Teaching to different learning styles may also be an effort to sprinkle pixie dust. In its darning assessment of teacher training programs, the National Council on Teacher Quality says a big factor dragging down the quality of teacher training is the focus on learning styles, which NCTQ says are bunk:

...the lesson planning guidance provided in most programs can only be described as voluminous and incoherent. And once one sifts through the volume—as we did to evaluate the standard—few of the requirements we looked for are to be found, even once. Requirements are overly general in some documents (e.g., “Differentiate instruction to deal with the diversity of your classroom”), or unrealistically expansive, asking the candidate to delineate means of differentiating instruction for students with a dozen or so specified characteristics in a daily lesson plan.

In the midst of very little consistency even within each of the sets of program documents evaluated on this standard, and certainly across sets of documents from programs in different institutions, one element of consistency does emerge: the direction to teacher candidates to plan for instruction that considers students’ “learning styles.” Unfortunately, this recommendation has been thoroughly discredited by research as
ineffectual and distracts the candidate from more productive planning considerations. Nonetheless, the “pseudo science” that learning styles be considered in planning lessons is advocated by three-fourths (74 percent) of programs [emphasis in original, Julie Greenberg, Arthur McKee, and Kate Walsh, "Teacher Prep Review," National Council on Teacher Quality, June 2013].

I check NCTQ's end notes on their remarkable equation of "learning styles" with "pseudo science" and find NCTQ cites this 2008 lit review:

...our search of the learning-styles literature has revealed only a few fragmentary and unconvincing pieces of evidence that meet this standard, and we therefore conclude that
the literature fails to provide adequate support for applying learning-style assessments in school settings. Moreover, several studies that used appropriate research designs found evidence that contradicted the learning-styles hypothesis (Massa & Mayer, 2006; Constantinidou & Baker, 2002). Finally, even if a study of a particular learning-style classification and its corresponding instructional methods was to reveal the necessary evidence, such a finding would provide support for that particular learning-style classification only—and only then if its benefits surpass the high costs of student assessments and tailored instruction [Harold Pashler, Mark McDaniel, Doug Rohrer, and Robert Bjork, "Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence," Psychological Science in the Public Interest, December 2008, p. 116].

Another psychologist agrees:

Psychologist Dan Willingham at the University of Virginia, who studies how our brains learn, says teachers should not tailor instruction to different kinds of learners. He says we're on more equal footing than we may think when it comes to how our brains learn. And it's a mistake to assume students will respond and remember information better depending on how it's presented [Patti Neighmond, "Think You're an Auditory or Visual Learner? Scientists Say It's Unlikely," NPR: Shots, 2011.08.29].

If these psychologists are right, it could be a great relief for us teachers. One teacher in a room of 20 or 30 students can individualize instruction only so far. When you're giving your all to one student or one group of students, you're probably not giving much to the rest. Even if we all have preferences for learning certain ways, I would think we teachers have an obligation to help students learn in as many ways possible; after all, you may prefer to learn by doing things with your hands, but life won't always be nice and give you a supervisor and co-workers who will train you with hands-on activities. Your boss may hand you a manual, say "Read it," and expect you to be ready to do what the manual says the next day.

So what do you think, fellow educators? Are we ready to challenge our bosses and ask that differentiating instruction for learning styles be stricken from our teacher evaluations until someone produces evidence that such differentiation makes a difference?

Here's how South Dakota's public teacher education programs rated:

Dakota State, Northern, and the U made the honor roll with their three-star secondary education programs. That honor roll included 9% of the school surveyed nationwide. None of our public universities made the elementary prep honor roll. SDSU and BHSU almost made the NCTQ "consumer alert" list with their one-star ratings in elementary teacher prep.

NCTQ based its ratings on eighteen standards, which they say are based on eight years of development and ten pilot studies. Under those standards, here are NCTQ's biggest beefs:

• It is far too easy to get into a teacher preparation program. Just over a quarter of programs restrict admissions to students in the top half of their class, compared with the highest-performing countries, which limit entry to the top third.
• Fewer than one in nine elementary programs and just over one-third of high school programs are preparing candidates in content at the level necessary to teach the new Common Core State Standards now being implemented in classrooms in 45 states and the District of Columbia.
• The “reading wars” are far from over. Three out of four elementary teacher preparation programs still are not teaching the methods of reading instruction that could substantially lower the number of children who never become proficient readers, from 30 percent to under 10 percent. Instead, the teacher candidate is all too often told to develop his or her “own unique approach” to teaching reading.
• Just 7 percent of programs ensure that their student teachers will have uniformly strong experiences, such as only allowing them to be placed in classrooms taught by teachers who are themselves effective, not just willing volunteers [Julie Greenberg, Arthur McKee and Kate Walsh, "Teacher Prep Review," National Council on Teacher Quality, June 2013].

The complaint about lax admission standards may apply to South Dakota. Josh Verges reported earlier this month that students in our public university teaching programs have a slightly lower average ACT score than the general student population. His breakdown of teacher candidate ACT scores by campus finds an interesting though imperfect alignment with the NCTQ ratings. Higher-rated USD has the highest teacher candidate ACT average, 0.1 points higher than its general student ACT average. Lower-rated SDSU has the lowest teacher candidate ACT average, 1.6 points lower than its general student ACT average. But note that DSU's teacher candidates have a slightly lower ACT score than their general campus population without managing to drag DSU's rating down to SDSU or BHSU levels.

So what do we do to improve teacher training? NCTQ makes these recommendations:

1. Get prospective teachers to apply to the school NCTQ rates highly. To South Dakota's benefit, NCTQ recommends the USD, NSU, and DSU secondary ed programs not just for their quality but as bargains!
2. Get school districts to include NCTQ ratings in evaluating candidates (heck: there go my chances, thanks to my SDSU degree!).
3. Place more student teachers with highly qualified teachers, not just willing volunteers.
4. Increase teacher program admission standards: take only students in the top half of their class, and require teacher programs to have average student GPA of 3.2 and ACT of 24 (that would put all South Dakota programs on alert!).
5. Impose tougher tests for teacher licensure (like the teacher bar exam we discussed here in January).
6. Base state funding of teacher prep programs on performance rather than enrollment (and NCTQ notes that South Dakota is moving in this direction).
7. Cap the number of teaching certificates issued each year (since apparently, we're graduating more teacher candidates than we need).

Making teacher preparation more rigorous should be more politically viable in South Dakota than policies targeting our public schools directly. It doesn't cost as much to tighten admission and licensure requirements as imposing more standardized tests or other "reforms" on 152 school districts. Getting less qualified teachers out of the system at the front end, before they even get into a classroom, would solve a lot of the problems that Governor Daugaard's ill-starred pile of school-wrecking 2012 reforms purported to address.

The only problem tougher teacher training would bring is a smaller, even more talented pool of South Dakota teachers who would be even tougher to keep on the job with our last-in-the-nation wages. How about it, South Dakota: if our universities train better teachers, are we willing to pay them the wages they'll demand and deserve?

Lindsay said the commissioners had requested that the South Dakota Attorney General's Office provide guidance on whether passage of the special maintenance fee was a legislative or administrative action. If the commission's passage of the fee resolution was a legislative action, then the decision is referable to voters. If the attorney general determines that the resolution was an administrative action, then questions arise concerning a public vote.

"At this point, we're waiting for further information," Lindsay said. "We're waiting to find out if we're making the correct decision" [Chuck Clement, "City Acknowledges Referendum Petitions, Officials Wait for AG's Opinion," Madison Daily Leader, 2013.06.17].

Legislative vs. administrative—Mayor Lindsay is looking to South Dakota Codified Law 9-20-19 to keep Madisonians from voting on the city's tax increase. That law reads as follows:

Any legislative decision of a governing body is subject to the referendum process. A legislative decision is one that enacts a permanent law or lays down a rule of conduct or course of policy for the guidance of citizens or their officers. Any matter of a permanent or general character is a legislative decision.

No administrative decision of a governing body is subject to the referendum process, unless specifically authorized by this code. An administrative decision is one that merely puts into execution a plan already adopted by the governing body itself or by the Legislature. Supervision of a program is an administrative decision. Hiring, disciplining, and setting the salaries of employees are administrative decisions.

[I'd link to the statute, but the whole dang state server seems to have gone haywire this morning.]

The City of Madison apparently contends that imposing an additional tax levy on property owners is not a decision of permanent or general character but is simply putting into execution some already adopted plan. That's the distinction that the South Dakota Supreme Court made in 2011 in turning back a referendum push by Grant County residents opposed to county zoning changes.

But does that distinction apply to tax increases? South Dakotans can refer property tax increases in the form of opt-outs, though that referendum power is specifically authorized by SDCL 10-13-36. This tax increase isn't an opt-out, although it seems to work that way, since it is an amount the city can take from each property holder without counting toward the property tax levy limit. And unlike the basic property tax levy, which I can see argued to be an administrative decision carrying out the general policy of obtaining funds for city operations through property tax, the road fee is a new component of the tax, distinct from the normal levy. That sounds like a general, legislative decision to me.

The Fort Pierre City Council is mirroring Madison's argument in rejecting referral of a "deferred development fee" for the Riverwalk development. Petitioners there are taking the city to court. The Madison City Commission is seeking cover from the Attorney General before issuing its rejection.

Mayor Lindsay suggests that the city is in dire straits and has to get new money for road repairs somewhere. But trying to dodge a public vote on getting that money seems nboth legally tenuous and politically unwise. Madison has had enough of shutting out the voice of the people. Let this vote happen, and have a discussion with the voters about the wealth, budget, and practical needs of the city, not the finer points of referendum law.

Perhaps Bosworth is competing with Kristi Noem to be the next Sarah Palin.

That yellow object the deputy draws at 1:19 is a taser. The protester standing for his president does not appear to flinch.

Note also the camouflage fatigues worn by some of the protesters. Clearly terrorists, right, Bob?

Ah, but Sheridan County Sheriff Terry Robbins hauled Brewer away for financial, not civil disobedience. The warrant they mention as they take him away was for a $191 check Brewer bounced last year. Brewer paid up at the courthouse and was released.

Now let's hope President Brewer doesn't bounce his check to the Rick Weiland campaign.

"I look at myself and I think how little I do..." [Governor Dennis Daugaard, interview, Karl Gehrke, "Trail of Governors," SDPB, 2013.06.17].

He said it, not me!

The South Dakota Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles, wants to remind motor vehicle owners that the second phase of the non-commercial motor vehicle registration fee increase will go into effect on July 1, 2013.

House Bill 1192, which was passed in 2011 over Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s veto, raised vehicle registration fees in a two-phase process.  The first phase took place in 2011, and the second increase will happen next month.  The new funds from the increase will go to local roads and bridges [South Dakota Division of Motor Vehicles, press release, 2013.06.17].

Ah, 2011 House Bill 1192. Who's to blame for helping market South Dakota to Minnesotans by filling more potholes? All but four Senators (including conservative-angling potential U.S. Senate candidate Larry Rhoden) and the mostly Nelson-Mugwumpy wing of the House (with the unexpected help of power-elite faves Kristin Conzet and now-Speaker Brian Gosch).

If you're buying a Smart car, curb weight 1,830 pounds, or a Mitsubishi Mirage (lighter in manual!) your registration fee will stay the same, $30. But if your car weighs more than 2,000 pounds, you'll pay $18 to $55 more for your tags. (See the expiring and new fee schedules on our DMV website; read the text of HB 1192 for a clear list of the increases.)

So remember, says the DMV: don't cuss them out, and please, please, please, don't cuss your loyal, low-tax Governor. Cuss those darned 83 veto-overriding legislators.

1. "Photography, observation, or surveillance of facilities, buildings, or ritical infrastructure and key resources": take pictures of roads, pumping stations, big pipeline storage depots, or TransCanada personnel (what resource is more key than one's people?), and you, too, could be a terrorist!
2. "Eliciting information beyond curiosity about a facility's or building's purpose, operations, or security": Curiosity kills the cat and the creepy eco-terrorist. Keep your questions to yourself, and let corporations do what they want.
3. "Material acquisition or storage of unusual quantities of materials": And how many of you have unusual quantities of ammunition and MREs in your Black Hills bunkers? Heck, how many of you bought more pickles and beans than you really need at Sam's Club last weekend?

TransCanada, a foreign corporation, is advising your law enforcement officials, via suspicious Homeland Security Fusion Centers, to keep an eye out for the above activities, for fear that Constitutionally protected activities by American citizens could hinder their pipeline profits. Pay attention: while right-wing criers distract us with fabricated scandals about the IRS challenging your ability to violate non-profit tax code, corporations are pushing your police to limit your ability to seek information and goods and speak up against injustice. You tell me which is the greater threat to your liberty.

Really? We mentioned last week that with all the hungry people in South Dakota, we need to get food stamps out to more people, not fewer.

But check this out:

• New Hampshire Food Bank reports they've boosted their state's SNAP participation to 75%. That's still 38,000-some eligible folks not receiving assistance.
• In Texas in 2011, 6.1 million people were eligible for food stamps, but only 4.1 million received assistance. That's two million going without benefits for which they qualify.
• The Food Research and Action Center says that 25% of Americans eligible for food assistance don't participate in the program. At March 2013 enrollment of 47.7 million, that would be 15.9 million Americans who are eligible for our help who aren't getting it.

I can't tell where Rep. Noem is getting her millions, though given her phrasing, I'll bet she's including folks who qualify under special rules by dint of having elderly or disabled household members. But given the continuing problems of hunger and unemployment and SNAP's efficiency and effectiveness, far from cutting Food Stamps for GOP ideological points, we should sustain and expand the program to help our neighbors and our economy.

Closely Related: According to the USDA, SNAP's payment error rate was record-low 3.8%. That includes a 0.81% rate of underpayment. So for every 100 cases where Uncle Sam handed out too much in food stamps, there were 27 cases where Uncle Sam handed out too little. And for every one of those error cases, there were 25 cases where they got the payment just right.

Additionally:

Relatively few SNAP errors represent dishonesty or fraud by recipi­ents. The overwhelming majority result from honest mistakes by recipients, eligibil­ity wor­kers, data entry clerks, or com­puter program­mers.  In recent years, states have reported that about 60 percent of the dollar value of overpay­ments and almost 90 percent of the dollar value of underpayments were their fault, rather than recipients’ fault.  Much of the rest of overpayments resulted from innocent errors by households facing a program with complex rules [Dottie Rosenbaum, "SNAP Is Effective and Efficient," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2013.03.11].

Rep. Kristi Noem could play Republican and fight to cut the bureaucracy and complex rules that prevent neighbors in need from getting the assistance to which they are entitled. Instead, she just waves her Norquist broom and cackles "I'll cut you, my pretties!"

But as further proof that there are numbers and then there are numbers, the BEA's new numbers on real personal income show that when you factor in the local cost of living, South Dakotans enjoyed the fastest growth in purchasing power in the nation, 10.4% between 2010 and 2011. (Watch those years: last week's data was 2012; this week's is 2011.) Every state enjoyed growth on this metric: Mississippi had the lowest, 1.3%, while the national average was 2.7%.

Break that purchasing power down per capita, and South Dakota still looks great, growing 9.4% in 2011. The only places with better purchasing power in 2011 were Connecticut and Washington, D.C.

Now that's the data Governor Daugaard needs to put on his Dakota Roots kiosk. Of course, the BEA data for 2011 still doesn't square with the Bureau of Labor Statistics data on average wages and MIT data on living wage, which shows that there are a lot of places (like Minnesota, California, and New York) where the local average wage goes further in feeding a family than it does in South Dakota. So I've got to wonder: is our wealth being concentrated at the top in a way that would make our average real income per capita look great while still leaving a majority of folks struggling?

One oddity from the data: BEA breaks that data down by metro and non-metro areas. In the Sioux Falls and Rapid City metro areas, real per capita personal income grew 4.7% in 2011. In South Dakota's non-metro areas, it grew 13.3%. South Dakota was one of just seven states where real per capita personal income grew faster in non-metro areas than metro areas (the others: Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, and North Dakota). Part of that difference is explained by the fact that the regional price parity in South Dakota's non-metro areas is 8.8 percentage points lower than that in Sioux Falls and Rapid City. (Metros are more costly than non-metros everywhere, with the average disparity 8.8 percentage points.) But the growth disparity also suggests South Dakota's high growth numbers aren't just a result of cash concentrating in the hands of big Sioux Falls bankers.