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 ReformRE: 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 forceDuring 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 dataPhase 3 September – October
Make recommendations
Research and policy changes for the funding of SD K-12 system
Issue a final report as a task forceThanks 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 would like to express my appreciation to Rep. May and Senator Greenfield for their recent facebook posts on the sham Blue Ribbon Task Force. Apparently, only three of the members of the Blue Ribbon Committee were even present at the “listening meeting.” The Governor should at least have his son-in-law show up to make it look good.
Look at education (not the students or teachers or schools, but the education itself) as the product. South Dakotans are looking to distribute the product and fund that distribution and all that goes with it.
Say I’ve got a room full of people needing a meal. I need people to serve it (a) and some people to pay for it (b). But all I’ve got to serve is mud (c).
No matter how much money (b) – still just mud (c).
No matter how well it’s served (a) – still mud (c).
So who will serve mud? How can I fund-raise for mud?
And, maybe even more important, who really cares if the people eat mud?
The people, if they eat mud, will get sick but eventually they will get well – right? And I don’t have any people I know who need to eat the mud – do I? If I do, they only need to eat a little and they will likely be fine – right?
Bottom line is: South Dakotans can’t, and usually don’t, ignore the product. If we have a good product, we have fewer funding and distribution problems.
If we can imagining that we have the best product in the world, then we might get some possible answers.
I’m with you on most of this, Pat. Except for when you talk about a GOP President getting rid of Common Core. That feeds into the common misconception that Common Core has anything to do with the federal government.
I’m basing that on previous efforts by the fed.
I know, and agree “Common Core” is state driven, but it is so maligned (deserved or not) that my magic ball says the next Republican President is going to propose new national standards.
Fair point
It’ll be Hill vs Jeb and that’s the way it is. Both are Common to the Core. 🙂 Creationism vs Evolution? pilgrim.http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/30/politics/bush-common-core/
hillary makes me nostalgic for chip mondale. he’s the last democrat on record to tell voters 1. the whole truth about what he thinks is wrong, and 2. the whole truth about what he wanted to do to fix it. of course he’s a democrat who lost big, and i’m nostalgic for that too.
ok, ‘fritz’ mondale. at least i didn’t call him ‘dutch.’
I too cringed when Rep. May mentioned suicides during house floor debate but then I read articles like this, http://www.npr.org/2015/05/10/405694832/in-palo-altos-high-pressure-schools-suicides-lead-to-soul-searching . That being said, there are other obvious issues plaguing youth in the communities Rep. May represents but when it comes to a human life, all things should be on the table when trying to eliminate these senseless deaths. But your reference to her statements then are intended to be a distraction to what she is saying now.
Please don’t be so short sighted.
I attended a Blue Ribbon Panel meeting this week. I was unimpressed with the legislatures who were hand-picked. If the intent was to listen to those in the trenches, maybe they should’ve been sitting at the tables listening to the discussion between participants. Rep Soholt stated the legislators present would be sitting in the back of the room because legislators tend to “talk to much”. So as these elected officials, who were there to “listen” chose instead to not listen to the discussions instead they will be relying on sound-bite sized comments that can fit on a sticky note. I never heard a reference to Common Core or SBAC but I did hear administrators, teachers, parents and business owners discuss the cost of mandates. One superintendent from a mid to large school district even questioned the “cost of compliance” and another teacher asked about the cost of programs and new curriculum and a business owner asked for the cost/focus to be changed from “work force development to simply helping students become well rounded adults” A well rounded adult he said, is naturally a better employee. I’ll be curious if any of those comments make it to phase 2. My guess is no.
So if all things are on the table when it comes to education spending/funding, then all things truly need to be on the table. But if the Blue Panel is just a sham, which is the general consensus of others I’ve talked to that have attended, then maybe this dog and pony show should end and the money go towards teacher pay.
Well said!
I believe it was in May when we teachers received an e-mail about the Blue Ribbon Commission. One of the questions the governor asked is why is it that 12 states spend less per student and still pay teachers more. I believe that is a fair question.
I know of school districts that have students who travel over 50 miles every day on the bus. What is the average cost of transportation in the SD school districts? I would wager our state pays more than most. Another area I would look at is the costs of sports. I remember a superintendent telling me one time that sports account for 5% of their budget. How much does it cost to bus a football team from Sioux Falls to Rapid City? Does this come from the general budget?
How does the costs of technology in SD compare with other states? I am not sure whether our schools are spending more in technology or less. If we are spending more than those other states, then perhaps that is one of the reasons our teachers get paid less.
First, content standards are an issue which have been discussed and voted on. To allow one issue to preclude or dominate all other matters is to inappropriately narrow the issue.
Second, great comment dugger. On so many issues, the most fundamental issue is management. With very few exceptions, schools are one of the biggest businesses in every town in which they are located. Yet,
We elect school board members from various elements of our society who have very little experience or expertise on running a big business. Yes they are parents and yes they care about education. But, doesn’t mean they have all the skills necessary to oversee the business of education. This makes the board over-dependent on their staff. And this dependence may make them excessively deferent to staff (form of tail wagging the dog).
On a related note, they hire the Superintendent (or inherit the Superintendent which also has implications on the power of the tail) but again what skills do they have to assess a big business manager?
The question by the Governor “why can some states spend less per pupil yet pay teachers more?” gives us reason to ask the management question and possibly consider it the fundamental or first question to be addressed.
I believe two things not currently done by the State as a service to our schools are:
1). Provide intensive resources, conferences, and seminars for school board members with regard to hiring, management, budgeting, etc. Failure to augment the skills board members bring to the table effectively allows staff to ultimately run the schools with little true or effective oversight. Again, schools are big business whether we like it or not.
2). Do the same with regard to Superintendent’s and Principals. Most if not all rise up out of the classroom which has its advantages but it doesn’t mean they are fully developed with regard to management of a big business. Nurses or welder who become President of the Hospital or manufacturing company are rare but it is the norm in education. In fact, I can think of NO PLACE in society where this is true.
3). Set up a “evaluation team” which local school boards can hire to come in and evaluate anything they want. Business hires outside consultants to evaluate financial controls, human resources policy, management structure, succession, and just about everything else. But in this big business (education), we say to each school board “Good luck. We are cheering for you.” The evaluation can be confidential and the board can choose to implement recommendations or not. But it at least gives them a tool for change instead of asking the “fox” how better to protect the hens.
No matter how good an idea or how much money a business has is less important to business success than having good management. Failing to give school boards, Superintendents and Principals tools to be good mangers is to insure at best mediocrity regardless of the quality of the idea (standards) or the resources thrown at education.
Troy, are you advocating for the state to mandate training of School Board Members? Associated School Boards of SD provides leadership training (GAVEL – Governance Academy for Visionary Education Leadership), but the problem is too few School Board Members take advantage of training. Thoughts?
Fred,
Tell me a job where someone can walk in the door with no experience and say they need no training or information on how to do the job? The hubris would be shocking.
Troy, you’re preaching to the choir. The point is, do you want to mandate training for public servants?
The legislature.
It has the just like you learn my head! Material recognize a great deal in regards to this, just like you wrote this e-book within it or anything. I have faith that you only could possibly employ some Percentage to drive a car the message house a bit, having said that besides these very, that is superb blog. A fantastic read. I’ll absolutely return to their office T'ai Chi Ch'uan (Martial Art), Chen-style T'ai Chi Ch'uan, explicación de Tai Chi, aplications of Taichi, Style, Martial Arts (Sport), Combat (Media Genre), Tai Chi, Pushing Hands, Chen Xiao Wang, Ma Hong, Chen Zhaokui, feng zhi qiang, Fighting, Estilo Chen, Fight, Taiji, Taiji Quan, Pan zhencai, Chen Fake, forma 83, defense, chen fake, Freestyle, Combat, fighting, taiji, Karate, Master, qigong, health, martai, power, Arts, Free, yang, tsao, self, kung, arts.
We have too many school districts, which means we have too much administrative overhead, too many superintendents, etc.
Having just returned from Massachusetts I looked up some numbers:
Population of Massachusetts: 6,745,000
Number of school districts: 401
Number of residents per district: 16,820
Population of South Dakota: 853,175
Number of school districts: 151
Number of residents per district: 5,650
Given that residents=taxpayers and districts=administrative staff, the solution to the funding problem is consolidation. Consolidate the administrative costs and there will be enough money to pay the people who actually do the teaching.
Anne, do the math for cost savings to reduce administrators. There’s still not enough money to provide competitive salaries.
It’s a start.
Fred,
I think there are a number of things we can do besides mandating training:
1) Report how many school board members are participating in seminars/conferences/training.
2) Create incentives for participating including paying them for attending (remember these people likely have to take off work/use vacation time).
3) Assess and report to the public schools which are using certain “best practices” on hiring practices, management principles, etc.
However, I would mandate administrators participate in training on best practices and management principles. The State is paying a lot of the bill of running schools and such a demand is not reasonable for the money from the State taxpayer. Why should we subsidize poorly managed schools?