From the Rapid City Journal come the foes of education trying to stop an opt-out in it’s tracks:
Weaver’s group, along with the Citizens for Academic Transparency and South Dakota Campaign for Liberty, opposes the opt out, which would allow the district to exceed the lid on property taxes.
and…
The school board approved the opt out on March 24 after a district fiscal officer said there would be no money to give 1,800 district employees a raise next year, even with $6 million in general fund reductions and a 2 percent raise in education funding by the state Legislature.
The district dipped into its reserves to pay for an $85 million general fund budget for this year. About 85 percent of the general fund goes toward salaries and employee benefits.
The additional levy from the opt out is projected to cost property owners an additional $12 per $100,000 of assessed valuation for each $1 million of opt-out revenue, or $72 per year if the school district asks for the full $6 million.
Agricultural property owners’ taxes would jump $30 per year per $100,000 in assessed valuation, with non-agricultural, commercial property owners facing an annual tax increase of $150 per $100,000 of valuation.
Weaver said the district isn’t forthcoming on how education money is spent, and she questions the need to put more of a burden on taxpayers.
and…
Weaver said part of the problem is the state’s acceptance of the common core mandates.
“These requirements are driving up the cost of education, and it’s debatable whether any of it even benefits the children. No one’s asking that question: ‘Is it good for the kids?'” she said.
If anyone can demonstrate how one set of educational standards, common core, is driving up educational costs versus any other set of standards, I’d like to hear the explanation. But standards are a small argument in light of the problem of paying for our kids getting a quality education.
Education has been on the bottom rung of the funding ladder for many, many years in South Dakota. I’d argue some of it has been the fault and tactics of lobbying groups such as SDEA, who spent years attacking Republicans and alienating themselves in the legislative process. I’d argue that some of it comes from bad attitudes towards the profession (I work 12 months out of the year and those gol durn teachers don’t, etc), and some of it is our culture – we’re pretty darned tight with our tax dollars.
I don’t think suing the state helped much (to determine what educational funding should be) to help the relationship either.
In the past, our students have been able to keep pace, and even excel in test scores despite a disparity in teacher pay and educational funding. But in recent years, the differences are becoming pronounced enough to get legislators to pay attention, as one conservative Republican legislator was commenting the other day:
…even a casual reader of the Argus Leader would be aware that we have funding challenges for education in South Dakota. Competitive salaries to attract and retain qualified educators in the k-12 world, and funds to keep tuition affordable in the technical school and regental system will come with a cost – a big one. The only realistic option on the table is some form of a sales tax for some period of time.
As Representative Schoenbeck notes, a temporary sales tax, such as during summer months, would raise a considerable amount of money, and dedicating it to education would provide the stable source of funding the education lobby has been demanding for years. Would we want it year-round? Or it it never going to happen?
So I pose the question to you. What do you think?
This will be defeated by a wider margin than the civic center debacle.
you can rile up that ‘no’ vote against the thing you hate, and then watch the same ‘no’ voters come back and snuff the thing you want. oh cruel fate.
Wasn’t video lottery $$ for education too?
As I understand it, legislators wanted to dedicate it, but the ed lobby didn’t want it because they claimed it wasn’t stable enough of a source.
PP I have heard that within the last seven years too. Unbelievable to comprehend actually.
We as a State blew it horribly when at the onset of State Sponsored commercial gambling we allowed it to be put into the General Fund instead of a Trust Fund. Today that trust fund would be over $2,000,000,000 , yes that is a B!!
back then as i recall anything republicans would put forth for revenue that wasn’t a state income tax was trashed by the traditional democrat groups, who saw the lack of such state income tax as an undue burden on them that other states’ democrats didn’t have to endure. too bad “red vs blue” isn’t “red vs black” with the red states being the ones in the hole and sinking faster. that would be an instructive social division for the kids to view.
It’s an interesting problem. The quality of the schools affects residential property values, so the owners of residential property gain the most by improving the schools. Tourists, on the other hand, get the least out of their destination’s educational services, other than the ability of seasonal workers to make change correctly.
Sales taxes are considered one of the most regressive forms of taxation as they affect the poorest disproportionally.
I would like to see a debate on the pros and cons of taxing the poor & itinerant to increase the value of private residences in the area.
I’ll make the popcorn.
Many states use some type of sales tax that sticks it to uot of staters. Since it happens to us, I have no problem doing the same.
A few days ago I participated on a panel at the SD high school principals’ assoc meeting. Seated next to me were Rick Melmer, Melody Schopp and Rob Monson. After introductions and a discussion of legislative session highs and lows, the balance of the two hour block was devoted to questions from the audience which were almost entirely about teacher shortages.
Common Core was not discussed (and I disagree with Weaver’s assessment), nor was SDEA’s politics (I agree with your assessment, Pat).
Clearly South Dakota has a teacher shortage, but so does every other state in the US. That confounds understanding the cause in our state. Is South Dakota’s shortage just due to money, or do national education and cultural issues also play a role – and if so, how much of a role?
In recent weeks two relevant reports were released: one that showed our state teacher vacancy is at an historic high; and the other that showed one-third of last year’s teacher graduates accepted teaching jobs outside of South Dakota. Both reports concern me, but I also wonder how surrounding states compare.
What’s the vacancy rate in Wyoming and North Dakota and all the other states that surround SD? And what percentage of their teacher-graduates go out of their state for work?
If surrounding states show vacancy and graduate departure rates similar to South Dakota, chances are the primary cause(s) of our state’s teacher shortage is systemic or at very least regional. On the other hand, if teacher vacancy and graduate departure rates in surrounding states are substantially less than ours, than that’s meaningful, and creating a more competitive teacher salary in South Dakota is will need to be one of the issues we look at next session.
According to my general belief in our economic system, if we want more teachers then we should be doing things to attract them. That can be in salaries or other benefits. Whatever the solution, the cost of education will go up.
Ain’t no such thing as a “temporary” tax. Whether we should bite the bullet and increase taxes for roads & schools is a fair question. The ability to trust those responsible for spending the money is a key component in the answer to that question.
The implementation of Common Core would make costs go down. Much of the costs of development of educational resources (textbooks, testing, interactive curriculum resources, etc.) is to align each resource to individual states. The two big players being CA and TX. In addition, developing standards at a state level is very costly and tedious, having common standards allows states to stream line the process, thus reducing costs. Ms. Weaver is just looking for another to spread her misinformation.
Republicans (to include RNC) oppose the liberal left’s Common Core take over of education. The more education is taken away from local control, the worse it has gotten.
Does anyone else find it odd that we keep hearing about being the last on the teacher pay scale due to the legislature not providing sufficiently for education; yet, the administration in South Dakota ranks in the upper half nationally on the pay scale…hmmm…..I wonder who sets their wages??? Oh, maybe school boards. Should it not then be up to the boards to pay the teachers fairly and competitvely? Money for some and not for others?
Yes!
Nailed it !
The administrators get their money.
Does this play into the mayoral race?
I haven’t heard that SD administrators are in the upper half nationally for pay. However, even if true, that’s not the source of the low teacher pay. The number of administrators in a district is a small fraction of the number of teachers. So even if you cut administrative salaries in half, you wouldn’t free up enough money to make a dent in teacher salaries, and then you’d be left with no administrators and no teachers.
Keeping an eye on administrative salaries is just fine, but don’t let it distract you from the real issue, which is a simple lack of resources.
Mark, administrators are 24thin the nation while teachers are 51st.
“real issue, which is a simple lack of resources”
Anybody have a history on an inflation adjusted cost per student for South Dakota. Is it really a lack of resources, or is it like all other governmental entities that expand their scope so that every aspect of our lives are under their control.
Seems like there are a lot of nice buildings going up. At least there has in Mitchell. If the Mitchell school district have enough money to build a $13 million Fine Art Center, but don’t have enough to pay math and science teachers, then I think we have misplaced priorities instead of a lack of resources.
But.. but.. Sibby! That’s government economic development! You know, the Democratic idea of taking tax dollars to create state run/state assisted businesses that compete in the “free-market” managed by government.
Economic development to Republicans used to mean keeping taxes/government limited so business and free-market could flourish. Now? Moderates have adopted the Democrats ideas and programs of more government involvement.
classic blue blood republicans have always been somewhat socialist. nixon didn’t impose wage and price freezes because the chinese brainwashed him. the republican brand has always been about a struggle between rugged-individualism and upward affluence caused by free markets; yayhoo populism / fraud has always pretty much been left to the left to exploit for their destructive ends.
Skidmark, Are you sure about that? Plenty of corruption here in SD!
Sibby that 13 million FAC is part of a 5 year plan jobs program for the city which is part of the proletariat very similar to how our GOED acts at times
Sibby I agree with you on misplaced priorities but differ on who is to blame. School Boards are beholden to the taxpayer and will always find funding for publically prioritized large projects. Salaries once set are base loads on school funding and almost always the largest expenditure. So if we are serious about changing our low teacher pay status, we must find a way to directly pay a portion of teachers salaries from the State General Fund. Knowing full well though that teacher/student ratios would need to be part of the formula to equalize school districts. That will end up being the biggest hurdle to battle.
Charlie could you elaborate on this statement for me. I’m not exactly sure what you meant, and would like understand. “Knowing full well though teacher/student ratios would need to be part of the formula to equalize school districts.”
Bill B to pay every certified teacher in South Dakota $X dollars directly from the State without parameters of a minimum class size needed for full pay would encourage smaller and smaller classes. A window of optimum size in grades one through eight certainly with exemptions on higher pre-college type normally attended by fewer students. The large majority of certified teachers in SD would already be within the average class size.
I would assume a one penny summer education sales tax would be more than enough to fund all our needs. But the legislature must be in control of every penny of it.
If the year long SD sales tax is payed for with 30% non-resident money it would be very interesting to know what percent non-residents pay from say May through September.
There are several points to be made here:
1) I sign whenever I see an opponent of an education-related tax or program measure characterized as a “foe of education”: I have never heard someone advocating for the elimination of education.
2) PP is correct about the education lobby advocating against dedicating the state’s lottery revenue to education. However, as I heard it, there was a fear that a dedicated funding source would have made it harder to lobby for additional general fund revenues for K-12 education (at the time, the state paid about a quarter of K-12 costs; now it’s over 50%).
3) The funding formula instituted in 1995 traded more predictability in local property taxes for a large increase in the state-paid share of K-12 education. Local districts have always had the option of an opt-out to increase local taxes beyond the state-imposed cap, at the risk of their decision being referred to the voters.
4) There is no teacher shortage. There is a shortage of *practicing* teachers. Like nurses, there are hundreds of thousands of qualified teachers who have allowed their credentials to lapse because they have left the profession. Low pay may be one reason, but there are many other reasons as well.
5) There are no scientific studies correlating money spent on education with the quality of educational outcomes. As a result, arguing for more money is, in itself, a losing argument on the merits. Rather, education advocates need to focus on outcome-based and impact-based strategies and advocate for those strategies, with the costs as a necessary follow-up. We’re getting closer with the current debate over a teacher shortage based on competing states’ pay.
6) When I ran for the SF school Board in 1999, I had no chance of winning because another candidate had been endorsed by the “bargaining units” (I came in second in a field of 12(!) candidates for a single open seat) before I could meet with them. Besides, I was a Republican and known for it . I met with the bargaining units’ representatives and told them that more money wouldn’t make an unhappy employee happier. Their challenge was arbitrary and onerous work rules that sapped their souls and insulted their humanity by taking away much of their freedom of action to do their jobs well. By the end of the meeting, they were encouraging me to run in the following year!
Wyland,
1) I agree. Stupid argument.
2) I was there. It was deemed the State could take the volatility of Lottery Revenues better than schools so it was decided to increase State Aid based on need and Lottery into the General Fund.
3) I agree
4) One of the reason’s is work environment. I think the worst managers in our economy are at our schools, colleges and universities.
5) Somethings are intuitive and not needing of a study. However, the first question is are we spending the current dollars correctly (too many bad administrators for instance)?
6) Run again.
We know a teacher who left the profession because of Common Core. Many of her friends who were teachers got fed up and retired also. It’s insulting to them to be an experienced teacher and have to completely change everything they had been doing successfully for years. She now teaches music lessons. This is part of the reason for the teacher shortage.