Humble Proposal for Finding Additional Funds for Education

On June 16, the Blue Ribbon Task Force will be in Sioux Falls to discuss the following question (and possibly the only question, but time will tell): What possibilities are there to meaningfully fund education for our kids and our communities?   We are currently in Phase 1 of the process of listening to feedback from the public, appointing members, and other "listening/gathering" steps.

I would like to start with a question: What is the definition of "meaningfully"?  I will be very interested to hear if this get defined or has been defined to allow for development of the discussion.  Maybe it is Cory's suggestion at Dakota Free Press of $60,000 for each teacher or maybe it is a constant funding stream of 2% or maybe it is close all public schools and make students attend private charter or religious schools with the state providing a voucher of $4,000 for all students.  I think a majority of people would look at it from a level of being in the 70% of the US national average and be closer to all of our neighbors like Nebraska, Iowa, or North Dakota.  South Dakota's average salary was about $40,000 compared to our nearest neighbor of North Dakota at $48,600 and Nebraska at $49,500.  Those states are at a level of 85% and 86.5% respectively of the national average.  That would mean increasing funding just for teacher's salaries by an average of $8,000 at least.  That means increasing around $73 million.

To accomplish this, funds will need to come from a variety of places.  I offer this as a starting point by doing some quick looking at our state budget.  Examining what I consider to be "non-essential" services (These are parts of the government whose job does not impact the whole of the state) and making some cuts to those programs to help our schools, we can at least have a jumping off point.  Here are my recommendations with some justification:

First is the Department of Tourism- Cut their General Funds of $1.94 million.  Funds from other sources could be shifted to cover the loss on the "history" component. 

Next is from Executive Management which eats up nearly $31 million of the general funds budget.  (Don't get me started on the fact the Governor's office wants to increase that to nearly $46 million, an amount that would increase school budgets by more than $105 per student just on the "proposed" increase alone).  I have broken these down from certain sub-groups-

GOED- $2.49 million.  They saw an increase of $15 million from other funding sources, so I think that they can do without their general funds amount.

Bureau of Finance and Management- $4 million.  They say an increase of $5 million from other funds.  For some reason it says that the Governor would like to increase this areas total budget for 2016 by more than $33 million. 

Bureau of Administration- $3 million.  This agency saw an increase of over $6 million between 2014 and 2015.  The governor wants to add another $1.6 million for 2016.

Next is from Legislature- $644,000.  This is basically the increase in "personal services" between 2014 and 2015.  It is not much, but every little bit helps.

Department of Agriculture- $600,000.  This was the general funds increase between 2014 and 2015.  It also saw an increase of federal and other funds of nearly $4 million.

This simple beginning would increase funding by around $98 per student.  It doesn't get to $73 million, but it is a start.

Pay to Play Hurts the Community: Part 2 in a Series

A few days ago I wrote about how pay to play in public schools hurts the lower and middle class students and families.  The idea to use activities as a tool to balance budgets is something that has little upside and some very big downsides.  One of the downsides I would like to focus on is the impact that it would have on the community.

Sports and extra-curricular activities like band and debate are additional vehicles to help teach students important life skills that can be taken into the community, and in many cases, become a source of pride for the community.  Last night I had an opportunity to watch the movie McFarland with my family.  If you are not familiar with the movie, it shows the sort of impact sports can have on a community.  It provided a sense of belonging for the students and a sense of pride for the community.

This sense of community has many upsides for the town and community they are involved in as a whole.  Darryl Hill, an advocate for youth sports, wrote in the National Journal on January 31, 2014:

I think sports are an integral part of our society, not only to the individuals who play but to the community in which they live. Sports brings kids together, it breeds understanding and racial balance. And then the young people who play are typically just better citizens top to bottom—less likely to drop out of school, do drugs, get pregnant, be touched by the law. One of the most startling statistics I've read is a study of female executives in Fortune 500 top companies [in which] upward of 90 percent had played high school sports, which speaks volumes on what sports do.  

Sports teach people camaraderie, time management, winning and losing, balance, and teamwork, and patience, being more assertive, more aggressive. The list goes on and on. On the downside, if a kid is idle, we know where that can often lead—and not just to bad health and obesity but to other antisocial behavior. That's particularly telling in the underserved communities, but they're the ones being impacted the most by the commercialization of youth sports.

Before you think that this is just a sports fan pushing ideas without any research, I encourage to consider the studies.  Several studies have reported the positive impact that sports can have for students and the communities that they live in...

Research has shown that the longer youth play sport, the greater attachment they have to their community, according to a series of measures. Studies using data from the University of Maryland’s National Youth Survey of Civil Engagement show that sport participants, compared to those who do not participate in sport, are more likely to register to vote (66 percent versus 44 percent) and to follow the news (41 percent versus 27 percent).57Studies by Eccles and Barber50 show that youth sport participation is positively related to adult involvement in community activities that can last a lifetime. Youth who participate in sport are more likely to make friends, including those of different races.58 Young athletes are better able to acquire emotional control, learn the value of teamwork, and exhibit initiative,59 all social skills that can contribute to a better community. However, with many of these findings, the associations could be correlative rather than causal, because youth who choose to be highly engaged in sport also may chose to be highly engaged in other community activities. 

There is no question that providing opportunities for youth to play sport provides community benefit—if for no other reason than idle time can be filled with activities that are healthy and positive. For example, when Phoenix, Arizona, basketball courts and other recreational facilities were kept open until 2 a.m. during summer hours, juvenile crime dropped 55 percent.60 Similarly, crime rates dropped by 24 percent after late night recreation programs were started in Cincinnati, Ohio.61 

When you decide to target sports and drive students from it with pay to play schemes, you hurt the student, the school and the entire community.  When you claim that you don't want your tax dollars to pay for sports, then think of your tax dollars helping pay to make the community a better place.  

I am not saying that every extra-curricular activity is extremely beneficial.  A lot of it depends on the way the activity is done.  A focus on mastery of skills and self- and team-improvement is vital to getting the best bang for the tax dollar.  If that is not the case where you live, try to change that attitude instead of lashing out at all activities.  Every child does not need to be the football star, but when students are able to be part of a group, then they get the chance to feel like a vital part of something.  This is what we need more of; not less. 

Pay to Play in school sports is a bad idea

Rapid City schools are going to need to make some significant changes and cuts to programs.  This will have a significant impact on the students and community.  One of the more consistent arguments to reduce school spending is to make extra-curricular activities pay-to-play.  This is something that gets brought up a lot when it comes to school funding and a response to why there is no need for increased funding from the state.  I think it is important to offer some counter-arguments as to why making schools implement a pay-to-play scheme is a really disastrous idea.  To be fair, I need to make it known that I coach an co-curricular activity; speech and debate.  This will be a multiple series of blogs to avoid them becoming too long.

1. Pay-to-play will hurt lower and middle-class students.
School has always been one of the great equalizers if fighting income inequality.  It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor, schools will work to provide a quality educational opportunity to all it sees.  It cannot overcome those that can afford private tutors, going on amazing trips for educational experiences, or people that can afford private coaches.  However, when I have a student sitting in my classroom, I don't care how much his or her parents make, I care if they are learning.  When a student tells me they want to debate, I don't care how much money he or she brings to the table, but are they going to work and grow as a speaker and a thinker.

When activities need to start charging a fee for children to play, it drives students away from the activity. Students and the parents see the burden and are then forced to make a hard choice.  A recent survey of parents supports this idea:

Sports participation among lower-income students decreased by 10% compared to the May 2012 poll on the same subject. Even among parents in higher-income households, nearly 1 in 10 parents said their child had decreased sports participation because of cost – twice as high as reported in 2012. 

I have seen the struggle from students, and we do not charge students to participate in the activity.  We do ask that they pay for meals while we are at tournaments and any other costs.  Every weekend, I seem to have one student that will pass on McDonald's on the way home at six o'clock because they do not have money.  I once had a student tell me that they did not know if they could go to the state competition because they did not have money to eat.  Talked to my administrator and looked for ways to provide some monetary support to all students so they can get some food.  We now look at ways to bring snacks, water, and other items to support them while they compete, so that can help reduce costs.

You may be thinking that it really doesn't cost that much.  If they really want to do it, then the parents can come up with the money.  If I had to ask a student to come up with the costs of going to debate tournaments, (we always looking for the best deal available which can be seen in my students' face when we pull up to some of the hotels) it would probably be about $300-$500 per student.  It would hurt the program and it would prevent a learning experience for students.

Sarah Clarke, a research scientist with University of Michigan and associate director of the National Poll on Children's Health, stated about the 2015 survey mentioned earlier but on the University of Michigan Health System website:

The poll found the average school sports participation fee was $126 per child; while 38 percent paid $0 in participation fees—some receiving waivers for those fees—18 percent paid $200 or more. 

In addition to the participation fees, parents in the poll reported an average of $275 in other sports-related costs like equipment and travel. 

“So the average cost for sports participation was $400 per child. For many families, that cost is out of reach,” Clark says.

When people argue that schools should not support extra-curricular activities and they should be pay-to-play, then remember that they are looking for ways to exclude students from participating.  That exclusion has an impact (I will talk more about that in a later post) for the child.  This is not what public education is supposed to be about.  

Rapid City loses based on some really STUPID logic

I am sad to see the general lack of support for Rapid City education after the failure of the opt-out vote.  The impact of this vote will have serious consequences for the students and the community.  Cory posts the school board's reaction to the failure of the vote at Dakota Free Press.  The school board is exactly correct when it said

 "With this 'no' vote on the opt-out, it is time for your School Board to start dismantling the departments of the school district in our community," School  Board President Jim Hansen said. "Unfortunately, the school district alone will not be the loser, but the effects from this 'no' vote, our community will suffer as well."

I understand that tax-payers are upset that there will be an increase in taxes and the tax burden is high for those not seeing increases in salaries or real wages.  I also understand that there is concern with the amount that administration may be getting paid.  I think that those can be legitimate concerns, but not enough to handcuffing your children's future and placing them in a position that they never created. 

One of the worst reasons given for not supporting the opt-out is that this will make Pierre listen and do more.  Here is one post from the Rapid City Journal that captures this feeling:

I would agree with the thought that we need to improve the pay for the teaching profession here in SD - but I don't think the Opt-Out was the way to go.  

Our legislature needs to step up to the plate, and increase our revenue by slightly reducing some tax breaks that have been given to certain groups for decades, cases in point are the break we give the credit card companies, and the Alcohol plants that produce alcohol for gasoline, (a process by the way that doesn't do what it's supposed to do - in my opinion). This list can go on and on.... 

 If anyone thinks that this will "send a message to Pierre," then I would like to know why they have not heard all of the other "messages."  Even if it sent a message to Pierre, the damage will still be done to the students.  The cuts will have to be made, because the school budget for next year has already been established.  The earliest that increased funding could come from Pierre is for 2016-2017 school year.  What is the school district supposed to do until then?

Local Rapid City are representatives actually tried to use this argument just days before the election.

Four state representatives called today for voters to reject the Rapid City school district's proposed opt–out of property tax limits citing the pending work of a blue ribbon task force examining school funding issues.

Todd Brink, supporter for the opt-out, summed this illogical thought process when he said:

"It's ironic that on the eve of the election they would arrive and say 'Let's just wait a year and see what happens in Pierre,' when these are four or our elective representatives that we sent to Pierre to solve these problems and find policy solutions in the past,” he said.

I worry about the impact of this result will have on the students.  Those in the community that did not vote or voted against it should worry about what will happen when schools have to close, programs disappear, and the district will see those that can leave Rapid City for better educational opportunities in surrounding communities.  However, you have no one to blame but yourselves.

"We just want our teachers to teach." A novel idea.

In today's Argus Leader, the paper reported about parents wanting to pull their student's out of testing.  While some claim that it violates constitutional rights...

During an exchange with Sittig, Kvigne refused to sign a form he sent her, and instead defended her right to refuse the test by citing the 14th Amendment and case law.

Others talk about what I consider a much more important issue with testing: does it have any academic value.  As a teacher, I really wonder how much weight I can add to these tests.  There are no consequences for students, so those that get done in 5 minutes on a test that is supposed to take at least 45 minutes, get weighed into and drag down the results of those students that actually try.  There is no consideration for the students that must deal with a very random math problem that has no consequence or basis in their life.  I can not go into any specifics about the test, but ask yourself how hard you would have worked on a test that required a couple of hours of work and you get nothing for doing your best.

Recent news shows that the scores may have some use for those students that care and are thinking of going to higher education.  

Nearly 200 colleges and universities in six states have agreed to let students skip remedial coursework if they reach the college-readiness score on the 2015 Smarter Balanced assessment. 

In the end, the biggest problem is that these tests are not diagnostic tests to help improve schools, but are tools of judgement to belittle schools and teachers.  They only take a snap-shot of a child, but have significant impacts on "measuring" the worth of the child.  There are also several issues with the measurement of tests.  

I wish that we could get beyond the thought of placing so much importance on testing and stay focused on improving education for all.  If politicians would stop worrying about testing and setting standards and worry more about coming up with ways to reduce poverty and  fight inequality, then we could see real improvement in society.  Tim Slekar, an advocate for the opt-out of testing movement was quoted in US News and World Report on March 10, 2015:

"Why are the standards – the first ones we set – not, 'All kids will come to school not hungry, not sick and with access to books?'" Slekar says. "Those are some great standards, but yet those standards we're not allowed to go after."

If politicians would focus on these issues instead of using tests to compare and shame educators, we might see some real progress in society.  I doubt there will be an end to testing anytime soon, but it would be nice for the words of Roger Russell quoted in the Argus Leader to come true:

"I think parents are just getting tired of all the testing," Russell said. "We just want our teachers to teach." (Bold is my emphasis.)

I look forward to hearing what the Blue Ribbon Task Force has about the idea of letting our teachers teach instead of over focusing on testing during the June 16th meeting.

Daugaard Gets an "F" in Understanding Today's Students

Daugaard just doesn't get it.  Despite that his GOED paying money for Lawrence and Schiller to find out what people care about and think about when it comes to choosing to stay and live in our state, he sends out a message of the usual low taxes, and low cost of living drivel to our graduates looking forward to getting out of the state; I mean, getting out into the "real world."

He states:

Most of you probably already have a good idea of what you’ll be doing next – what additional education you’ll seek or what career you’ll pursue. Whether you’ve decided to stay in South Dakota or pursue a career or education elsewhere, I hope you’ll ultimately consider a future here in our state. There are a number of reasons to consider living and working here.

First, we have the fourth lowest unemployment rate in the nation at 3.5 percent, compared to the national rate of 5.5 percent. Job opportunities are better here than in most places.

Secondly, the tax burden in South Dakota is low. We are among only a few states without an income tax, meaning you can keep more of the money you earn. Money that can repay student debt, buy a house someday or replace that car you drove into the ground in school.

Third, not only do people keep more of the money they earn in South Dakota, but that money will buy more here than in other places. According to a U.S. Department of Commerce report, South Dakotans experience a very low cost of living in the United States. We don’t spend as much money on housing, insurance, food and the other everyday needs. In fact, we have some of the lowest costs in the nation.  In New York, California, Washington, D.C., or many other places, you will find costs that are 10 percent, 12 percent, even 18 percent higher than the national average.  In South Dakota those costs are only 88 percent of the national average.

Today's youth are not focused on "getting by."  They are not persuaded with talk about low cost of living if that means that you have nothing to do while living here.  His own economic advisor said as much:

"One of our mantras for business is no state income tax," Costello said. "That didn't resonate with individuals. Individuals viewed that as maybe the state doesn't have good education or fire protection or crime might be high or the park system not adequate. That was almost a quality of life deterrent."

The Governor ignores this and shows no sign of being able to think past the tired, old justifications that are not working.  Today's graduating students are concerned about things like getting a job with a decent pay, being able to see a future for themselves, but they are also looking for purpose and opportunity beyond a paycheck.  That may come in the form of opportunity of entertainment, it may come in the form of service in the community, it may come in the opportunity to explode on the scene in a profession.  

Dr. Tim Elmore posted this insight into graduating students in 2012:

Nine out of ten of them think about the future several times a week. They desire a “life of purpose” and want to engage in work that has a higher meaning than to merely draw a paycheck. They’re trying to make sense of it all, but life gives them an anxious eagerness about the future.

While that was in 2012, I believe that is true today.  Mr. Daugaard, if you want to succeed at encouraging more of our youth to stay in South Dakota, you must show them that it is not the almighty dollar that matters.  They can go and get good paying jobs in almost every other state.  You must show them that South Dakota provides an opportunity for life to really matter.  You must go beyond the idea that one can simply live in South Dakota and try and make this a place where people WANT to live in South Dakota.

In Search of Teachers

Much has been said about the teacher shortage that is happening in South Dakota, and not just by me.  This shortage has some in Pierre worried; unfortunately, the Governor is one of those that doesn't seem to concerned.  Yes, he has set up another panel to study the problem, despite that there was one already done by a bi-partisan group of legislative members last year.  

This problem will not be solved overnight or with some television's ads trying to convince teachers to move here because at least they will get paid more here than on Mars (maybe).  Cindy Long with NEA Today reported that students all across the United States are turning away from teaching as a career option.

The report shows that only 5 percent (89,347 students) of the nearly 1.85 million 2014 U.S. high school graduates who took the ACT^® test said they intended to pursue a career as an educator—either as a teacher, counselor or administrator. Both the percentage and number have steadily dropped each year since 2010, when 7 percent of graduates (106,659 students) planned an education major.

Now before Daugaard and others can say, "See, this is not a South Dakota problem.  Other states are having a tough time too.  There is no reason to increase funding!"  It is time for the state to proactive.  Something that this is not always known for.

At Black Hills State, they are a bit concerned too about the shortage.  Jake Nordbye writes on the BHSU site, 

For example, in the Todd County school district there are currently 38 open teaching positions. Thirty-eight is an astronomical number. Traditionally, South Dakota schools have most of their teaching positions filled by the end of May....

The article points to a need to get caught up and we are failing while other states jump way ahead of us.

“Without a major effort we’ll never get caught up,” Monson said, adding that a recent study showed that a South Dakota teacher’s salary has the same buying power as it did in 1969. Low salaries for teachers were one of the main issues cited for the shrinking teacher pool. Monson noted since the 1999-2000 school year Wyoming raised teacher pay by 24 percent, North Dakota 15 percent and Nebraska seven percent. During that same time period South Dakota decreased salaries by 0.6 percent. South Dakota also ranks last in the nation in average teacher pay. 

The article then reminds us the importance of good teachers in the classroom.  

Children living in the United States have the right to a free public education. And the Constitution requires that all kids be given equal educational opportunity no matter what their race, ethnic background, religion, or sex, or whether they are rich or poor, citizen or non-citizen. If our students are lacking competent, well-trained professionals in South Dakota’s classrooms, we are denying them that right, and that’s more than just a national embarrassment, it’s negligence. 

We will be seeing you, Education Blue Ribbon Panel, in June.