Pierre Superintendent: $8000 increase is closer to $3500

Catch the article in today’s Pierre Capital Journal: The Pierre School Superintendent, Dr. Kelly Glodt, points out that the Governor’s plan for $8000 more for teachers is only going to be worth $3500 when the rubber hits the road:

Superintendent Glodt said although the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s proposal gets described as raising the average teacher’s pay about $8,000 a year to about $48,000, it won’t work that way and is much more complicated.

The many formulas and circumstances of the 151 public school districts and the changes in state funding formulas will all work out in various ways, Glodt said.

And while teachers need raises, the lowest-paid employees of the Pierre district, custodians and cooks, need raises more than anyone, Glodt said. And the lowest-paid jobs are the hardest to keep filled, Glodt said.

All his teacher slots are filled, but he’s advertising for cooks and janitors every week, he said. Plus, his administrators also deserve a raise, so he would use some of the added funding for that, Glodt said.

If the teacher pay proposal gets approved by the Legislature, it likely will mean an average raise of about $3,500 to Pierre school teachers, not $8,000, he said.

Read it here.

I don’t think anyone would disagree that every district is different, but teachers only getting $3500 of $8,000 seems far from the intent of what’s being promoted. 

Is this just a harsh dose of reality, or an indication that legislators need to build in strong directives on how the money is to be used? 

12 thoughts on “Pierre Superintendent: $8000 increase is closer to $3500

  1. Bill B

    They need to build strong directives with this money. I’ve already heard 2 teaching friends from different school districts say their superintendent said the same thing. I am okay with this tax, but it needs to go to teachers. That was/is the intent.

  2. C.W.

    And why would we trust our state government with more money? Perhaps the half million from Gear up paid to Mellmer or the 62 million of mismanaged funds can be repaid. Until South Dakota has an ethics committee appointed, I say no more taxes. I am fine with higher taxes, as long as it comes with more accountability

    1. Anonymous

      –And why would we trust our state government with more money?

      I basically asked the same question and my post was removed.

      If we’re against bigger nanny state gov’t (and generally, I am), how is giving tax funds to one interest group justified? “Because SD is last in teacher pay” doesn’t appear to be a grown up rationale.

      –I am fine with higher taxes, as long as it comes with more accountability

      Agreed. Yet, the bill to account for the use of TANF funds by drug & alcohol abusers has been roundly condemned around here as “big gov’t nanny state” (among other gripes).

      The principled, conservative, and compassionate stand would be to hold recipients accountable for the use of tax funds, whether TANF or this bill. If the cost of that accountability is not reasonable in terms of the projected savings from that accountability, then dump the bill.

  3. Hack

    Why is it OK for the SD Legislature to tell local governments how to spend the money, but they howl like coyotes when the DC politicians do the same to them. If they want to increase funding to education fine, but don’t tell local leaders how they have to spend the money. Just because teachers have better lobbyists than the rest of the employees doesn’t mean that is where the greatest need is in each and every district in SD. Let local control work. Act like a small government republican.

    1. Anonymous

      –Why is it OK for the SD Legislature to tell local governments

      Because the “state” as a political unit was and is considered the plenary “sovereign” of its citizens. The federal gov’t is a political unit of limited sovereignty (supposedly). Counties and municipalities and water districts and sewer districts and weed districts and judicial districts and on and on are creations of the state, and as such, are subject to its control. The federal gov’t is a creation of the states as well and (supposedly) subject to the control of the states. The feds did NOT create the states!

      None of the original 13 states would have ceded their sovereignty to the feds (via the US constitution) had they know it would come to today’s imbalance of federalism.

      Federalism 101–A Lost Art

    2. Anonymous

      — Just because teachers have better lobbyists than the rest of the employees doesn’t mean that is where the greatest need is in each and every district in SD.

      Agreed.

      1. Bill B

        If administrators receive raises out of this tax.. Change my vote from Yes to No on supporting this proposal. Also I thought the problem was making teacher pay competitive. Sounds like Superintendents want to use the money for whatever their heart desires. Sorry teachers of Pierre, looks like your Superintendent is trying to hoodwink you before a bill is submitted.

  4. Troy Jones

    Pat,

    This goes to the reality of fitting a round peg in a square hole.

    In some areas, the unskilled positions are easiest to fill because there is an abundance of unskilled workers in that area. Without any data to back this up, I can imagine this might be in the less robust economic areas.

    At the same time, in other areas the easiest to fill are the skilled positions because their is an abundance of skilled workers in that area. Again, this is what I hear is the issue in the districts around Sioux Falls, which is the most robust economic area in the state.

  5. Charlie Hoffman

    Administration pay raises made by local school boards are the most difficult to administer correctly for the Superintendent advises the board on all salary matters.

  6. Springer

    School administrators are highly paid compared to teachers and others in the school system. I’m against this increased tax, but this just fuels my feelings against it. As I and others have said, many workers in SD are underpaid; they just don’t have the loud and persistent lobby that the teachers do. And I do not understand Daugaard’s changes to the school funding formula – very confusing.

  7. Anonymous

    — but this just fuels my feelings against it. As I and others have said, many workers in SD are underpaid; they just don’t have the loud and persistent lobby that the teachers do.

    That’s the way I’m beginning to lean.

    It has become more of an obsession about money by the loudest audience; while other groups similarly situated cannot afford batteries for their bullhorn.