Category: Education

From KELOland, reporter Kevin Woster is discussing State Representative Lee Schoenbeck’s proposal to increase teacher salaries in the upcoming session with a sales tax increase based on our tourism season:

Well, Schoenbeck – who might be considered the Ethan Hunt of the state Republican Party these days when it comes to raising teacher salaries – has everything going for him on the educator-pay issue except, well, a tax.

The state representative from Watertown will need one – a pretty big one — to make any difference..

The one he’s proposing, for the sake of discussion at this point, would hike the state sales tax by a penny from May 1 to Nov. 1, which would fall just short of hitting all those presents my family and friends will be purchasing each year for my birthday on Nov. 3. (Thanks, Lee…)

Before that, it would hit us all in a regressive way, but not one that carries a horrible tax burden for anyone. And it would, of course, put an additional burden on visitors to our state – hunters, bikers, Missouri River walleye fishers, boaters and the gawkers and walkers that make South Dakota Tourism go.

Why should they help us fix our education-funding problem?

“Next time you’re in Minneapolis, look at your bill — all the taxes we pay to support their infrastructure that are sales taxes on your bill,” Schoenbeck says. “And that’s true of every city you go to.”

Read it all here.

What do you think? Is that the solution the problem of teacher pay has been looking for?

State Representative Elizabeth May sent out her letters to her colleagues demanding a special session this week, and in case you didn’t get yours, you can read it here:

The letter notes the need to “Move decisions back to the representation of the people, and free up our teachers and local school boards.”  But the petition for a special session seems to contradict this a bit:

The petition for a special session notes that “the special session shall address the teachers, facilities, and resources needed to provide a quality education including possible sources for increased funding for education, the length of the school year, the pay for teachers, the use of technology in education, and the assessments used to measure academic progress.”

If the letter talks about “Move decisions back to the representation of the people”  meaning more local control, why would the session include discussion on the length of the school year, which is typically up to individual districts? As well as the use of technology for education… again, usually up to individual school districts.

So, what are your thoughts? Would you sign on to it?

Representative May responded to our post below on the issues she expressed with the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Education, and I thought it was worth bringing up to a top level post for discussion. (No changes to the text, but I did add some paragraph formatting to the text for readability):

22. 1. Liz May June 20, 2015 at 12:17 am

       I can’t believe I’m on a “Blog” but since it was brought to my email box I’ve decided to respond and use my “Real” name.

       The State of South Dakota along with the rest of the country wanted out of “No Child Left Behind” The Feds. offered a RTT Grant that States could apply for. South Dakota applied for the RTT Grant with no guarantees that they would receive it. Upon applyiing for the grant they were required to entered into a contract for CCSS. South Dakota DID NOT receive the RTT Grant, but now were required to implement CCSS. With the implementation of CCSS it came at a high cost. Since there was no money that came through the RTT Grant the state was now on the hook to pay for the updates. These facts were held back from the citizens of SD.

       I’ve been asking for 3 years “What the financial consequences are for implementation of CCSS to no avail.”Fast forward to 2015 Legislative Session and SB53. The Gov. and Dept. of Education had no intentions nor could they pay for the technology and assessments without political consequences. So what they did is used SB53 to pass the cost on to the local districts.

       You might wonder why would any legislator support such a move. Well, they wrote the bill to include the technology/assessments and to get the votes needed they threw the sparsity into the bill. Legislators that had areas of sparsity in their district were scared that they would loose the funding. Sparsity had always been part of the Cutler/Gabriel Formula. That’s the background on CCSS adoption so let’s move on to the arguement. Under CCSS teachers can use 15% of outside material (not associated with CCSS) in the classroom.

       The problem with using outside material or teaching in a different manner is CC is based on the results for SBAC. (Teachers are evaluted based on SBAC results) If you were a teacher would you add material or alternative’s to adding 2+2 that students will not be tested on? See that’s the problem, teachers are not allowed to deviate away from the curriculum without suffering the consequences of retaliation. Local school boards have no other alternative in what standards, curriculum and assessments they use. There is currently only 3 text book companies and they all align to CCSS.

       So the idea that CCSS is a free, transparent and locally controlled way to educate is a fadrication sold to you by none other than Bill Gates, unelected bureaucrats and companies that are making millions of dollars of the backs of our chilldren.

       On a side note, schools districts such as Rapid City who are under financial distress/loosing teachers are a direct result of the technology/assessment mandates. The money they’re asking for is not for teacher pay. The taxpayers are once again required to pay for something that is unproven and our children are being used as guinea pigs. This new Blue Ribbon Taskforce is an affront to everything we stand for in South Dakota. The new “rules” handed out to legislators in an email from the governor’s office should spark outrage all across the state. In South Dakota the legislature is tasked with in my view the most important job of any society, The education of our children.

       However, in recent years, the bureaucrats, along with the full cooperation of the education committee chairs, have shut elected official and the public out of the discussion.

       Only those who are willing to submit to the executive branches’ mandates without question are given any voice. I I ran to serve the citizens of District 27 and all citizens of South Dakota. I was not elected by bureaucrats and the Governor. The way legislators are push aside is nothing short of draconian.

       As citizens, you don’t have to agree with my ideas on education. The issue at play here is that if you find my policy prescriptions ineffective you have recourse as is your God given right. Get me out of office. However, our current administration has found the silly notion of elected officials to be cumbersome and an obstacle to their current agenda.

Read the original text here.

I’ve had a few legislators bring this facebook post from South Dakota State Representative Elizabeth May to my attention, and I’m finally getting 10 minutes to get the opportunity to convert the post from a series of screen grabs to text.

May expresses her unhappiness with the Blue Ribbon Task Force, the participants, how they’re conducting the meetings, and with common core. No, she’s not saying common core causes suicide again. But, she is interjecting it into the task force examining how we fund education.

Read for yourself:

Elizabeth Marty May – Jun 2 at 11:26pm

This morning, the following email was sent to all South Dakota Legislators from Tony Venhuizen, Chief of Staff to Gov. Daugaard, on behalf of Sen. Deb Soholt and Rep. Jacqueline Sly, Co-Chairs of the Blue Ribbon Task Force:

Legislators – I am sending this email on behalf of Blue Ribbon Co­ Chairs Soholt and Sly. thv

TO: South Dakota Legislators
FROM: Senator Deb Soholt & Representative Jacque Sly
Co-Chairs,Blue Ribbon Task Force for Education Funding Reform

RE: Public Listening Sessions – Blue Ribbon Greetings to our Legislative Colleagues!

We have the privilege of co-chairing the Blue Ribbon Task Force on K-12 Teachers and Students to reevaluate the current funding formula, collect and analyze data, engage with stakeholders and seek public input. We will then make recommendations to the 2016 Legislature for reform.

With the focus on solely on education funding and teacher pipeline, we will not be considering standards/curriculum, assessments, student achievement etc.

The Technology and Innovation in Education (TIE) group is helping with overall facilitation for the effort (as when PEW assisted with criminal justice and juvenile justice reform).

We want to update you on the status of the work, and invite you to come to scheduled meetings to listen/observe public input.

Phase 1                March – June
Seeking information from the public
Listening sessions with the public and with individual groups
Collect that feedback
Synthesize feedback into a report
Appoint stakeholder members of the task force

During Phase 1 we have been considering the following question:

What possibilities exist to meaningfully fund education for our kids and our communities?

We’ve already met with: SDEA, State PTA, Technology in Education (TIE). Associated School Boards (ASBSD), SD Elementary Principals, and NE Superintendents.        Now we’ll be listening in 6 communities and having 3 sessions each time with teachers, business community and the public. Find meeting times/locations on the blueribbon.sd.gov site.

June 2 – Chamberlain June 3 – Rapid City June 16 – Sioux Falls June 17 – Yankton June 22 – Watertown June 23 – Aberdeen

As legislators you are invited to come to these sessions and observe/listen to the input. We are using a very participative method, and ask that legislators not be part of the group – but observers and supporters of the work. We are wanting this phase to be hearing specific stakeholder groups outside of the legislature.

Phase 2                July – August
Task force will meet to analyze and consider data

Phase 3                September – October
Make recommendations
Research and policy changes for the funding of SD K-12 system
Issue a final report as a task force

Thanks for following our progress on blueribbon.sd.gov and connect with us as needed.

We appreciate your support for this very important issue for the successful future of South Dakota!

——–

I do want to share some of my concerns with my email.

I don’t know how you discuss education funding without discussing the Common Core, assessments and federal mandates for which the South Dakota Department of Education has become the enforcement arm.

I don’t know how you discuss the teacher pipeline without discussing the Common Core and its underlying message that we can’t trust teachers to teach. I don’t know one teacher who went into teaching to create data points and spend their days doing test prep. Will they look at this as contributing to the teacher shortage?

Please remember that at the same time, schools were being forced to take cuts, teacher salaries were either frozen or cut, the state chose to adopt unproven content standards which required professional development for teachers to learn an unproven pedagogy.

And what an affront to legislators. To be asked not to participate and to support the work of this panel. What if there is a disagreement? I wasn’t aware that we elected representatives to support the vision of a qovernor appointed panel.

And those stakeholders the panel is working with, here’s a little on those organizations.

South Dakota PTA – We know the national PTA has accepted funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to promote the Common Core.

SDEA South Dakota Education Association – We know that the NEA (National Education Association has accepted funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to, among other things, develop Common Core aligned curriculum. The SDEA is one of the organizations that works very hard legislatively to prevent the repeal or defunding of the Common Core.

TIE Technology & Innovation in Education – This organization is the South Dakota arm of mass customized learning, the program where students spend their time with an electronic device guiding their learning vs. a teacher guiding their learning. They have partnered with the SD Department of Education.

ASBSD Associated School Boards of South Dakota – This organization is also very busy legislatively blocking the removal of the Common Core Standards and testing. The National School Board Association has accepted   Gates Core standards and testing. The national School Board Association has accepted Gates Foundation Grant Money.

SASD School Administrators of South Dakota – This organization is comprised of Elementary and Secondary Principals and Superintendents. This organization works very hard to block legislation removing the Common Core and the testing.

I’ve got news for the “Blue Ribbon Task Force” I’ll go to any mtg. I want and I’ll ask any question I want. Who in the hell do these people think they are?     This “Blue Ribbon Task Force” is a joke. Every person appointed is in leadership and only 3 actually sit on the “Education Committee” Tommorow they’re in Rapid City and everyone within a 100 miles needs to go. It’s that important folks!!!!

I guess I’m not seeing some of the problems with the listening sessions that she’s describing. First and foremost, in the first phase, they’re wanting input from the stakeholders – the people and organizations that deliver education in the state.  (Now we’ll be listening in 6 communities and having 3 sessions each time with teachers, business community and the public.)

May describes this as a major faux pas (“And what an affront to legislators. To be asked not to participate and to support the work of this panel. What if there is a disagreement?“)

If I was looking to find out what the public thinks, I have to agree with the organizers – I wouldn’t want a bunch of legislators running over them either. Legislators will get ample opportunity for input. Believe me, they’ll get plenty of input.

Otherwise, in her lament to her colleagues, it’s common core “this,” and common core “that.”

Did we forget about why this panel was called? It’s not about common core.  Despite May noting “I don’t know how you discuss education funding without discussing the Common Core, assessments and federal mandates for which the South Dakota Department of Education has become the enforcement arm,” and “I don’t know how you discuss the teacher pipeline without discussing the Common Core and its underlying message that we can’t trust teachers to teach.”

Again, I think that sells the purpose of the committee short.

Teacher shortages in key areas have been around long before common core arrived. Teacher pay has been an issue predating the much maligned content standards as well. How do you discuss either without common core? Pretty darned easily.

Content standards come and go, and have nothing to do how we tax the population to pay for education. They might slightly affect how many teachers we need for specific areas, but anymore it’s viewed in more of a context of the ability to pay them period, as opposed to what specialty they teach.

Make no mistake, and don’t get distracted by the flak being thrown up on content standards. Does anyone think Common Core will remain after a Republican president is elected? I don’t. It will be back to the drawing board, and we will once again have the newest and best-est proposals coming shortly thereafter.

This panel is about how we pay for education in South Dakota, and will have major economic repercussions for South Dakota and it’s taxpayers.

The economics of education are what the people watching the committee and how legislators react to it next year need to focus on. Will it be a restructuring of the funding formula?  Will it result in new taxes in the 2016 legislative session?

Ignore the noise and all the flashing lights. Because that’s not where you should be looking. Keep your eye on the economic ball. That’s the one you should be paying attention to.

What do you think?

I didn’t think it would happen in my lifetime, and it probably won’t.  But, it seems like there’s a slowly occurring, inexorable and unavoidable absorption of Fort Pierre by the big town on the other side of the river. And it’s being driven by education:

“But, the number of students we have going over to Pierre continues to increase,” he said, citing a jump from 95 Stanley County students open-enrolling to Pierre schools a couple years ago. “Now it’s 205,” Brown said. “Now we’ve got 120 kids left in high school.”

The State of South Dakota, through the State Board of Education, officially adopted their science curriculum today, which you’ll find below.

sdSciStnd

In conjunction with the adoption and issuance of the report, the National Center for Science Education covered the occasion, and noted the following on their web site:

The South Dakota state board of education adopted a new set of science standards for the state on May 18, 2015. The new standards were developed in South Dakota, but include elements of the Next Generation Science Standards, which have so far been adopted in thirteen states — California, Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia — plus the District of Columbia.

and…

A recognition of the controversy appears (PDF, p. 6) in the introduction to the standards: “Through the public hearing process related to adoption of the South Dakota Science Standards, it is evident that there is particular sensitivity to two issues: climate change and evolution.” Nevertheless, the South Dakota standards on climate change and evolution are not significantly different from the corresponding standards in the NGSS.

Read it all here.

So, while they’re doing it with sensitivity, South Dakota’s standards for teaching climate change and evolution are fairly close to those of the Next Generation Science Standards.

After reading the document, what’s your opinion?

Bob Mercer is reporting today that now that the fight over common core standards for Math and English are over for the year with the departure of the legislators from Pierre, we get to start fighting over standards for science curriculum:

Osmundson described climate change and evolution as “fringe ideas” but suggested there could be ways to hold classroom discussions about them without the school system advocating for or against the

Another opponent, Catherine Billion, of Sioux Falls, tied the standards movement to UNESCO — the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — and its Agenda 21 plan for sustainable development that was adopted at an international conference in 1992.

Billion said many South Dakota families have values that don’t match the school standards as proposed. “And that pits school against parents,” she said.

The state board could adopt the science standards at the May 18 meeting or direct the department to further revise them for possible final approval at the board’s July 27 meeting in Rapid City.

Read it all here.

Ugh. Why are they lumping ‘climate change,’ which isn’t settled by any means, with evolution, which has been accepted science for oh, over a century? Regardless, welcome to the next legislative session’s big fight, which could make the battle over algebra and diagramming sentences look tame.

What do you think?

If I dug hard enough in my boxes of “stuff” in my garage, somewhere I have an early 50’s Iowa grade school report card for my mother (who passed away 14 years ago), where it had a specific printed line item for the grade she had earned in ‘citizenship.’

The understanding of it back then was an abstract judgement of how you conduct yourself in normal society. And in some schools, it’s used yet today with phrases such as “_______ is a very dependable student. She frequently helps her classmates without being asked to do so. Thank-you for your help” scribbled in the margin as an explanatory/praising phrase on the report card.  Basically, a nice way to classify a child’s behavior amongst their peers.

Articles have been appearing in the media recently about how a group in South Dakota (as well as in 6 other states) want to take the definition beyond getting along with your peers, and require actual state level testing on actual citizenship:

“It’s kind of a no-brainer,” state coordinator Georgia Hanson said. “The kids should know this stuff.”

and…

South Dakota schools already must cover statehood and the United States Constitution, “not later than the opening of the eighth grade and shall continue in the high school,” according to state law.

But Hanson’s group would go a step further.

Starting with the 2016-17 school year, the North Dakota measure would require all public, private, and home school students to answer at least 60 percent of questions on the test correctly to be eligible for a diploma. Students can take the test once a year, any time between seventh grade and graduation.

and…

Organizers for the South Dakota initiative plan to introduce a bill for the 2015 legislative session, though Hanson said there was no rush.

“We’ve got time here to get this put together, and we want to make sure that everybody has a chance to either sponsor it or support it,” Hanson said.

Read it here.

The South Dakota law the article mentions (but fails to cite) is SDCL 13-33-4, which reads:

13-33-4.   Instruction on United States and state Constitutions required–Years when given. In all public and nonpublic schools located within the state there shall be given regular courses of instruction in the Constitutions of the United States and the State of South Dakota. Such instruction shall begin not later than the opening of the eighth grade and shall continue in the high school to an extent to be determined by the South Dakota Board of Education.

The law goes back to the state’s codification of laws back in 1939, and may pre-date it even further.  So it’s not as if South Dakota ignores a basic need for this type of instruction.  I don’t have a problem with this broad kind of guidance.

Maybe it’s my contrarian nature, but I can’t escape the notion in my head that the proposal being floated seems like yet another legislative measure for yet another standardized test for yet another graduation requirement. Yes, it’s about things that kids should know, but it’s also coming in the form of a mandate that a special interest wants to see thrust upon school children. And I’m quite sure that it will be administered without funding, leaving it at the expense of school districts and the state.

Before we get too far down the road on a bill being introduced, I think I’d raise the question of how adding this graduation requirement and changing the state’s legal requirement on instruction for the US Constitution was received by the South Dakota Board of Education when it was presented to them.

If it was ever presented to them.

If the parents in the state feel the instruction that schools are currently offering in this area is somehow deficient, the State BOE standards for that type of curriculum should be the first place to look. Going down the legislative path just opens the door for the “Why SDSU is better than USD” standardized graduation requirement, or the “Blogs are Awesome” curriculum law.

And that’s the last thing schools need from the state legislature.

But, that’s just my 2 cents worth.  What do you think?

(If you’re interested in finding out what the current graduation requirements are, there’s a 24 page booklet from the DOE available to view on-line.)