A show of hands as to anyone who thinks State Government can do it better, with less expense for taxpayers?

were both Peters and Haverly “tied Up” or just one of them. You would think someone could have made a comment

I agree with you in part. A couple years ago, the tech schools themselves supported that bill that would have removed local control and created a separate state board. So obviously THEY think the current system could be improved.

Having said that, I agree that the Haverly/Peters bill is a bad idea.

I have not read the specifics of this bill. This said, since my days at GOED, I have believed that vocational education would be served by a better coordinated system under the purview of a Regent’s like board in the Department of Education.

My rationale is there is too much duplication of programming. More importantly, local school boards don’t have the state-wide perspective on the needs of business with regard to vocational skill sets of workers and to develop it is a distraction from their primary focus (k-12 education).

I’m on the fence with regards to this bill.

Most of the time local school districts focus on K-12 education. The technical schools can be and have been left out in the cold by the school board. Technical school need some flexibility to be able to set a curriculum. The school board will at times establish blanket rules that are fine for K-12 and not for the Technical School

Technical School need the support of the K-12 Schools,
school boards and local businesses to know what skills are needed. It doesn’t make sense to teach something that is not going to be used in the immediate area.

This will grow state government by huge leaps and bounds and create a monster department of monster education with a monsterously huge budget. Peters must have thought this up and then forced it on Haverley.

I’ve always wondered why the tech schools are under control of the local school boards. They are not essentially schools local to any certain community; they are area wide and sometimes state wide in their offerings. I don’t know the specifics of this, but I can’t understand why they are under the control of local school boards.

And with increasing costs of traditional four year collages, I think the role of tech school will be expanding. I think changes need to be made, but won’t say what.

“It doesn’t make sense to teach something that is not going to be used in the immediate area”

So, who is to be concerned about the vocational needs of Huron, or Gettysburg, or Gregory, or Faith?

Vocational Schools receive significant funds from the state and virtually none from the local school districts. Yet, local school districts that contain vocational schools make virtually all the decisions.

I’m not criticizing in general the work and efforts of the local school boards. I believe they have done the best they can do. However, it is impossible for them to have the depth of context necessary to maximize the programs for the entire state.

A critical component of quality job creation is preparing the workers for not only the vocational needs of the community in which they reside but that of a broader community. This perspective can only be provided with broader accountability and expertise.

This is a change whose time has come.

Troy is right. Tech schools are largely state-funded, and should be directed to state objectives. K-12 school boards focus on K-12 issues; the tech schools are afterthoughts to them. They do the best they can, but the system just doesn’t make sense.

I don’t have a good answer for a better system. Maybe create four regional boards, one for each school, so that you retain local control but have a broader focus and a separate board.

I don’t think putting them under the direct control of the executive branch is a good idea. With both the universities and the tech schools, we are better served by insulating them from politics a little bit.

Troy, is right. But prior to vesting the BOR with more authority they should demonstrate they can properly manage authority they have. They should be forced to consolidate administration of the state’s six colleges either into a state university system or a regional management system. The BOR should be forced to get rid of university redundant presidents, administration, and management. The BOR should be required they can save tens of millions through centralized management – and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of higher education delivery BEFORE receiving authority over the technical schools.

If the executive director of the BOR were to take over 4 more institutions would you all agree he should get a raise?

I think this post is about 6 years too late.

I would like to see SD send the non infrastructure part of the stimulous back based on the fact that we will not be part of bankrupting our country.

Sending it back would also be great as a slam on stephie & blue dogs in general!!!

Detroit is right, giving the BOR more money or authority now is like giving your atm card to an addict. 6 years ago maybe… (detroit don’t let your head get too big!)

The idea of letting the DOE set up a board is much more responsible. Let the two agencies, board of Vocational Education and the board of Regents compete to provide the best education to our students.

No favoritism, no bias, just the Tech.ers Board vs. the Academics Board competing for the students dollar, may the best board win!

If the governors who opposed this don’t take the stimulous money that would show sincerity!

Troy is right. A Republican should also be concerned about 1) the redundancy of the programs offered, and 2) the K-12 superintendents running tech programs. PP is correct though in warning against increased bureaucracy if the state takes control.

Detroit,

This is an idea that has been floated since at least the Mickelson administration.

The BOR has essentially done that without crowning Perry “Chancellor”. If you look at the university system 20 years ago it wasn’t much of a system at all. The BOR has consolidated a lot of “back room” accounting/administration function without damaging each institution’s own identity (important for when you ask alumni to give money). People complain about having 6 universities in this state, but seldom look at the four “colleges” that continue to emerge without significant state oversight. A state board wound not only look out for the interests of those folks in Faith, but would hopefully spend our money wisely. We need a state board that at a minumum can hire and fire Tech School presidents.

I like the idea proposed by “Jonesin for more money”. A board providing statewide focus and goals for the Tech schools but separated from the BOR.

ToJo, from what I heard from my granddaughter who works for them, the BOR has spent tens of millions on consolidating accounting/administration functions with little success. They just keep bleeding money. And you want to see another behemoth like that?

What does HB 1269 do? It puts the technical institutes under total state control. The Secretary of Education reports directly to the Governor. There is no provision for any local, regional or state-wide board to oversee the policies and programs offered at the techs. Control for the Technical Institutes would lie solely in the hands of State Government. It would distance the technical institutes from regional business and industry input. In addition, there is no mechanism in the bill to prevent the Department of Education in the future from handing responsibility for the techs over to the Board of Regents.

As state entities, technical institutes would not be allowed to advocate for funding increases. The bill states the Secretary of Education will determine funding needed and make recommendations to the Governor and Legislature. The Secretary of Ed currently has the responsibility of presenting the technical institute funding needs to the Governor and advocating for the technical institutes. For the last four years the technical institutes have had to petition the Legislature for additional allocations because the Governor’s budget did not adequately provide for the tech institutes. HB 1269 would not allow the technical institutes to approach the Legislature for additional funding without the Secretary of Education securing the Governor’s permission. This bill muzzles the technical institutes.

Setting up more control and oversight in Pierre would impair the technical institute’s ability to respond quickly to industry needs. Under the current system, the Corporate Education departments at each tech can respond immediately to short-term training needs in our respective regions. If an entire new program is sought, Business and industry representatives can discuss their need with their regional technical institute. If research indicates a new program is needed, an application is submitted to the Department of Education, who consults with the Department of Labor and GOED. The process has been streamlined recently and new programs can be approved within a few months, if necessary. It is difficult to understand how this process could be enhanced by a governance change.

Control in Pierre would negatively affect the individual business and industry partnerships technical institutes are able to create and maintain.

Workability issues:
HB 1269 requires the school district turn over all the tech institute property to the state. No mention of financial compensation is mentioned. The Watertown School District has built buildings on the LATI campus which did not receive state bonding funding; therefore these buildings are the property of the School District, as is a large portion of the land LATI sits on. Fair compensation for these assets would have to be negotiated. The price tag for this change could be in the ten of millions of dollars. This is more than a local control issue; in very real terms it is an eminent domain tactic.

HB 1269 states the employees of the technical institutes will be hired or terminated by the Secretary of Education and employee salaries will be set in accordance with state laws and regulations. Tech schools are able to hire instructors in highly technical areas using the compensation the person would receive in the private sector as a guide. Depending upon the technical area taught, salaries may vary widely. This allows the tech schools to recruit and retain unique skill sets needed to teach. Putting instructors on a state salary schedule would hamper the tech schools ability to recruit instructors. In addition, no study has been conducted comparing the payscales of the various technical institutes. It is entirely possible that putting all technical institute employees on the same pay scale will increase costs.

One would presume the authors of the bill think by combining the business office services at each campus, costs could be reduced. This is not necessarily true. LATI pays the Watertown School District $139,230 a year. For this LATI gets the following services: voucher tracking, payments, insurance purchasing and monitoring and claiming, business manager oversight, payroll, benefit management, bidding, labor law compliance, construction oversight and assistance, and claiming for bonding funds, and overall direct supervision from the superintendent of schools. This is a bargain and would cost much more if done through Pierre.

Recent History: the governance bill passed by the Legislature and vetoed by the Governor two years ago was significantly different from HB 1269. The previous bill established regional governing boards for each technical institutes. A statewide board was also created, consisting of one regional rep from each tech institute and five other members appointed by the Governor. This bill maintained local control but provided stronger state oversight. It was vetoed by the Governor because it was thought to be an added expense where one wasn’t needed.

Conclusion: HB 1269 is a dangerous bill which would remove all local oversight and management for the technical institutes and centralize that function with the Secretary of Education. It would inhibit the technical institute’s ability to develop strong working relationships with regional partners. In addition, the governance change would come at great expense as local school districts would seek compensation for their assets and there is no guarantee state control would save expenditures.

Fred Deutsch
Pres, Watertown School Board

Mr. Deutsch, surely Representative Peters and Senator Haverly, who by all accounts walk hand-in-hand on all things Tech School related and who have been ardent supporters of the Tech Schools, would not put forth a bill that would be harmful to the very entities they have chosen to support.

The most efficient and streamlined system would be to fold the tech schools into the BOR. The Universities are very much a part of their communities even though they are governed at the state level. The tech schools would have the same local oversight as the universities…elected legislators and concerned administrators, faculty and citizens. Not to mention that there are no shortage of checks and balances that can be implemented to ensure local participation.

Quite frankly, I’m for less government and having one body dedicated to all post secondary education makes sense at many levels.

More government,

I support of your case, I would argue that any “undergraduate classes” (accounting, English, etc) should therefore be transferable for college credit throughout the state. At present, it can be difficult for Tech students to transfer credits earned in Tech schools as college credits.

I’d be more supportive of a system that allows that type of credit between schools. Things may have changed in the many years since I graduated, but I know that in “my day” it was difficult to transfer credits not only between a tech school and a college but it was difficult to transfer credits BETWEEN colleges / universities.

I can’t speak to Peters & Haverly’s motivation. I can however speak to their credibility. Here are a few facts:

1. About a third of the legislators that signed onto the bill have told me they were misled (some used stronger words than “misled” . . .). Several that signed on told me they will now testify against it after learning the truth.

2. Peters & Haverly NEVER shared one moment or one piece of the bill with those it affects … the local school boards or tech schools.

3. The bill was developed behind closed doors that did not include the industry people associated with ANY of the tech schools, nor the tech schools nor the school districts.

4. Tech schools ‘already’ do their budgets through the department of education. A review of recent history will show how well the DOE currently advocates for tech schools (in a word . . . poorly).

5. The bill effectively muzzles tech schools so that we cannot come to the legislature for help because we will be under the executive office and not the legislative branch.

PS – Troy, to state that local tech school governance is a distraction for school boards is simply a mischaracterization of the truth. In fact, the opposite is reality. In Watertown, we work very hard at what we do, very hard to be the best, and I believe our results speak for themselves. We have developed key and close working relationships with major employers throughout our region. I challenge anyone to show me how a distant centralized office can do a better job.

I greatly fear for the tech institutes if the BOR gets any control over them. That may be where this is all headed.

The brand Board was re constituted in 2004 in a shake up by Governor Rounds when he sent Highway Patrol Officers to the homes of four of the five Brand Board members to deliver a letter dismissing them.
Governor Rounds said he would make appointments when he decided whether the program will be staffed by State Employees or by a private contractor.
The South Dakotas brand inspection fee is now $.80 per head and inspection income plus fees for registering and renewing livestock brands pays the staff of the Brand Board and the inspection with no state tax money appropriated for either program.
The recording and inspection programs combined have total annual revenue prorated exceeding 2 million dollars Brand inspection is done at approximately 17 West River Auction markets and slaughter plants and 5 East River markets that receive West River livestock on an “Open” basis.

Fred,

Your first post is well-reasoned and I understand your perspective. During my days at GOED, the Watertown Vo-Tech school was extremely responsive and delivered a very good product and was highly responsive to local needs. And it proves my point. I know of very specific instances where we needed Watertown to expand certain programs needed by employers in Aberdeen and Webster to the detriment of programs that served the employment needs in Watertown (consequences of not having unlimited services). Guess who got underserved? Aberdeen and Webster and Sisseton. The same thing is true of Mitchell addressing needs in Huron, Sioux Falls addressing needs in Yankton and Beresford.

With regard to your second post, I take greater exception.

1) Being misled. Peters and Haverly I’m sure have negative attributes but dishonesty is not one of them. Miscommunication is more likely and is usually a joint failure between the talker and listener.

2) Not involving interested parties. We tried that during the Mickelson years and the parochial hue and cry made even the discussion of the issue impossible. Similarly, the parochial perspectives made a global discussion impossible. Sometimes to stimulate a discussion people need to see a proposal to work off. Based on your reasoned and assertive response, it at least got your attention. Now, it is imperative that as a leader you try to look at the problems caused by the local control to see if you can address these concerns. Failure to engage will ultimately result in you being left out of the solution.

3) See #2. Local businesses in Watertown, Mitchell, Sioux Falls and Rapid City need to try to see and understand the concerns of those in the communities that do not have Vocational Schools.

4) This is a consequence of local control and domination of narrow parochial interests. On more than one occassion people from GOED and DOE tried to effect consideration of alternatives that were just rebuffed without consideration. Why would you then expect them to be advocates for you when you consider yourself an island?

5) Despite the original draft of the bill (which I believe is an attempt to get your attention since other efforts were rebuffed out of hand), I suspect that ultimately the resolution will be a central Regents’ like board to which each schools will coordinate.

And finally to your final unenumerated comment. Watertown has always been an exemplary institution that enjoys great support from the Watertown business community, education community and community at large. But I guarantee, the perception of responsiveness is not held to the same degree in the other communities. Unless you address this, the writing is on the wall no matter how sincerely you believe you are doing a good job.

Furthermore, I believe it is inherently impossible for you to have the proper global perspective when you have a natural and appropriate bias and understanding that is restricted to your local experience and relationships.

But even if you had the extra-ordinary ability to discern the global needs, do you really believe that if an Aberdeen or other community business doesn’t get what they believe is justified, they will have the perception they were treated fairly. This Fred is the current fatal flaw in the structure today.

To give a specific example, I remember a prospect that was looking at Sisseton. Sisseton, GOED and DOE adamantly requested the presence of your director to be at the meeting. This person explained that they had a local commitment with a local business that had been previously scheduled. Despite our very expressed request, it fell on deaf ears. No matter how you spin it, a local meeting with a local business can be rescheduled. When you have an out-of-state prospect in town, their schedule pre-empts local. And finally, Fred, this was not an isolated incident. If I had access to my files and wasn’t hindered by the passage of 15+ years, I’ll bet me and some former colleagues could list dozens of similar stories.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a huge backer of the Vocational Schools and gave them very high grades with regard to sincerity, dedication, and effort. I have no doubt they are still that way if the Sioux Falls school is representative of the rest. (I live in Sioux Falls so that is all I have direct recent experience). But, because I believe the current structure is inherently flawed, I also believe that reality and perception of the communities without vocational schools is not the same as the experiences of those businesses in communities with a vocational school.

Troy, thank you for your reasoned response. I can’t knowledgeably speak to the reach of the other tech schools, but I can tell you things have changed a great deal with the reach of LATI since your days on GOED. We maintain advisory boards composed of employers throughout our geographic region. If programs are needed in Sisseton or Webster or Milbank or Aberdeen or Brookings or wherever in NE South Dakota, we respond in very short order.

Concerning your other points:

1. Email me your address and I will forward you email from other legislators that said in no uncertain words they were mislead. When you hear it from enough people, it’s hard to believe it was simple miscommunication. All I have to go on is what I hear back from legislators. (freddeutsch@wat.midco.net)

2. I spent time with the Governor in Pierre today. I believe he understands there is 100% opposition from the tech schools, their controlling boards, and tech related businesses.

3. Businesses may call a tech school in their geographic region to participate in a business & industry advisory panel. I can’t speak to the speed that workforce development needs are addressed at the other institutions, but in Watertown we are on it nearly immediately.

4. Troy, if this is a recent occurrence I would appreciate talking to you to learn more. The mission of the Tech schools is not consistent with narrow parochial interests.

5. While it ain’t over till it’s over, I suspect the bill will die in committee. We’ll know its fate tomorrow.

6. You may well be right.

7. Input from employers throughout NE South Dakota hopefully keeps us well focused as a school board in addressing regional workforce development needs. We work hard to meet as many regional needs as our budget will allow.

8. To place your example in context, I need to understand a timeline. How recently did this occur? If you have specific examples of issues that have developed since business & industry advisory groups were developed, we really should talk.

Fred,

1) Done.
2) I didn’t expect that the status quo would want a change.
3) I have no doubt that the Watertown Vo-Tech is still providing a good product by good and motivated people.
4) My direct personal experience was during the Mickelson administration. But it doesn’t change the fact that non-Watertown stakeholders in the focus and direction have no direct democratic means to hold you accountable.
5) It might die today but those who desire reform will not go away.
6) My experience is from the Mickelson administration. See #4.

Fred, I know you and the Watertown School Board take your responsibility seriously and operate with the best of intentions. Your admission of the value of regional involvement is an attempt to address this under the current structure. But the reality remains that the ultimate authority rests with an entity accountable to only a subset of your admitted broader constituency. This is contrary to basic principles of democratic representation, equal citizen involvement and input, and ultimately responsive actions of the Vocational Schools.

This is a fundamental flaw in the structure that until it is addressed with meaningful reform, the system will neither enjoy the broader support and confidence that it deserves.

Troy, thanks for the dialog. Your input helps me to think outside the box.