And the school districts are suing the state because......?
From this morning's Rapid City Journal:
At the very least, it provides fodder for discussion (and argument).
South Dakota students posted some of the nation’s highest scores on standardized science tests given last year to fourth- and eighth-graders in the state’s public schools. “We are very pleased to know that when we’re compared to other states across the country, we still stack up pretty good,” state Education Secretary Rick Melmer said.Read all of this AP article here. So, we're posting some of the highest scores in the nation, yet School Districts are suing the state because it doesn't spend enough in education? Doesn't that shoot that argument in the foot?
The 2005 science scores are from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which is considered the best measure of how students perform over time and how states compare with each other.
South Dakota’s students also had some of the nation’s highest scores in math and reading in NAEP results released in October. The test results released Wednesday focus only on science.
Melmer noted that only one state had a significantly higher score than South Dakota among eighth-graders and that South Dakota’s fourth-graders also posted a good score.
At the very least, it provides fodder for discussion (and argument).
Comments
Our schools exist for one purpose and one purpose only, to educate our children.
Our educational system should be judged not by how much we pay teachers but by how well our students are performing.
The argument that South Dakota schools suck because teachers are the lowest paid in the country in foolhardy and PP points that out in this article.
It's just leaning too heavily on property taxes. I know it's all tax money, but, it creates a great disequity in places like... oh, I don't know, like Brookings, where the citizens are very education-oriented, and they will support plans to move education FORWARD. But, places where property values are lower, they can't opt-out.
And, PP, let's not forget, while we have some of the best scores in the nation - our nation doesn't do very well in the world. This really is the future... education needs our support.
As for teacher pay - think bigger. Think healthcare costs. This state, and education as a whole, has been keeping people with great benefits - health, retirement, etc. With those costs sky rocketing, and no new money coming into education, its going to be cuts.
PP, did you vote for the opt-out in Brookings?
Maybe we have to look at how the money is being spent and move some of it toward teacher salaries. But, according to Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average pay for teachers is more than the average pay of 80% of all other workers in SD.
If we want to reward the good teachers, how about merit pay? The question though is how do we determine the good teacher? There must be a way, afterall they are always able to pick a "Teacher of the Year".
This creates the alleged town-killer known as school consolidation. It also creates a situation in which one gets better by mere process of elimination. Ask Louisiana right now how well their state is doing in certain areas, now that at least 350K of their poorest people have been "moved" by Katrina to other states.
And lest you think this forced consolidation I advocate will create a school construction boom, keep in mind that most schools in the state have lots of space to host additional kids.
First, those are based on estimates, not verified numbers, and a probably inflated some.
Second, yes, the state does get a lot of federal money for education. We have a lot of federal land that we can't tax. And, all that federal money stays on that federal land.
If spending in fact stays around the 7500 level, realize this - state sets the per pupil amount at 4300, of which is says it will pay about half... or 2150. The local property taxes cover the other portion.
That puts the state contribution at about 29% - or, the lowest in the nation.
The issue is more state funding. Some of that will work to offset a looming property tax revolt - reduce opt outs.
As for merit pay - bring it on. You might not want it, though. In a state where teachers do their job, think what would happen if you tied performance to that. You might not like what you get.
And, as for teachers getting paid more than alot of people - how about you don't distort the numbers and look at the average salary of college graduates in South Dakota. Play fair. Of course teachers make more than a counter worker at McDonalds.
It is as Einstein said "all relative". Many other States have been flooded with immigrants who have collapsed the grading standards and, in effect, allowed same scores appear to be higher.
The point is that this should not be a reason to stop arguing for more money for schools. They will always be underfunded.
Occupation/SD's rank in US
Accountant/auditor - 48th
Nurse - 47th
Secretary - 46th
Dental hygienist - 46th
Physical therapist - 43rd
And I know that many teachers make more than lawyers in SD. So much for comparing to McDonald's!
Face it, if you live in SD, you won't make as much money as say if you live in NY or NJ. But I for one think we have a lot of other perks that more than make up for the money difference, and our cost of living is a lot less.
Our district finally just passed its opt out, third try, lesser amount. So guess what they decided to spend some of the money on? They just joined the lawsuit! My taxes at work.
I think the state needs to find some way to fund education other than property taxes. But the $821 per pupil is a ridiculous amount. And the lawsuit is not the way to go either.
None of them are last, are they? Our universities are afforded resouces to bring their salaries up to neighboring states because they believe it hurts recruiting and retention. And, if you followed your school, you'd probably know how hard it is to get teachers to teach here when we offer salareies that aren't competitive. Are accountatnts, secretaries and physical therapists more important than teachers?
Even raising to 48th in the nation would be an accomplishment.
And, as for your district jointing the lawsuit - that's a relatively minor expense in the grand scheme of things. I don't like the idea of a lawsuit either, but, the "they claim they don't have money but they can sue the state" is misleading... a few thousand dollars is a small percentage of a budget.
Again, I don't agree. But, don't distort numbers just to make a point. Numbers are numbers.
It's not distorting the numbers, it's AVERAGES for each of the different job catagories. Doesn't matter if one has been working 2 mos. or 20 yrs, if they have a college degree or a GED, it's by job catagory.
Why don't you complain to the US Dept of Labor and tell them they don't know what they're doing. Better yet show us a better comprehensive study of ALL job catagories and their pay.
P.S. The DOL/BLS ratings consists of 20 main groupings, each subdivided down into 10-20 additional classes.
They post the wages of our teachers once a year with the school board minutes, and I know for a fact that many of them are very highly paid, and it has nothing to do with whether they are good teachers or not, it's simply based on length of time and how many extra credit hours they have taken.
As I said before, I respect most teachers. It's a job I could not do. But when the matter of salaries comes up, it is irritating and misleading.
BTW, no one is paid what they think they are worth; I'm certainly not!!
As for teachers not working as much as other people - if teachers used a time clock, there's more exact data. But, the argument that they only work nine months out of the year is sort of a tired analogy. Perhaps PP, who's wife is a teacher, can provide some tesimony on whether he thinks his wife works a full year like you or me.
And, lets keep in mind that we're talking about recruiting teachers. Teachers in Iowa, Nebraska... and everywhere else, they keep the same calendar and get far much more money.
And yes, some are very well paid. If they have in alot of years of service and have an advanced degree, they get paid more. Seems like plenty of jobs put value on those things.
And as far as whether they are doing a good job or not - like I am saying, bring merit pay on. If you use South Dakota's teacher job performance as a metric, we'll move into the top 10 in teacher pay in 10 years.
There are studies out there that go in to detail about how teachers are significantly underpaid compared to any other professional job that requires a 4-year degree.
Ask bureau of labor management about that.
Let me ask you a question. This state doesn't bat an eye at approving 3% across the board pay raises to state employees. There's no metic for how well they perform, they just get a pay raise. Teachers, though, they don't get such a luxury. School budgets, if they are lucky, get a 3% increase a year - and that goes to everything. If a school wants go add staff, increase professional development, anything - that has to come from the same pot.
Isn't that just a little hypocritical?