Issue Position: Education

Issue Position

In the late 1800's, our forefathers in Dakota Territory saw fit to provide for education by setting aside two sections of land in every township that were platted to provide funding for education. Sections 16 and 36 of every township became known as "school sections", and income derived from them helped to fund the schools. Somehow, in the intervening years, South Dakota has lost its direction in funding education for its citizens and has begun regarding education as an expense rather than whaIn the late 1800's, our forefathers in Dakota Territory saw fit to provide for education by setting aside two sections of land in every township that were platted to provide funding for education. Sections 16 and 36 of every township became known as "school sections", and income derived from them helped to fund the schools. Somehow, in the intervening years, South Dakota has lost its direction in funding education for its citizens and has begun regarding education as an expense rather than what it really is--an investment in the future.

Two years ago the governor convinced the legislature that 10% cuts were required in all state-funded programs, including schools. There were alternatives to taking such drastic cuts; for example, tapping into reserve funds to cover the temporary shortfall. Such drastic cuts have led to staff cuts, larger class sizes, and cutting the elective classes that are so important to providing a well-rounded education. Cuts in the state funding formula to schools have led to numerous districts "opting out" of the tax freeze in an attempt to make up for the shortfall. If the opt-outs are challenged and fail, schools are faced with difficult budget decisions. If the opt-outs go unchallenged or pass, then the tax burden is shifted from the state level to local real estate taxes. Our school boards, administrators and teachers are to be commended for coping as well as they have under these difficult circumstances, but the government needs to make education a higher priority to avoid doing irreversible damage to our state's future.

This past legislative session we learned that state revenues did indeed improve and that we now have enough money to restore some of the school funds that were cut. However, in order to collect the money, the schools find themselves subjected to a law called House Bill 1234 that would dole out the money in the form of merit pay and incentive pay for math and science teachers. There are other provisions in the bill too, like removal of teacher tenure and the right of teachers to negotiate with school boards for their contracts. Many have argued that merit pay causes friction and prevents collaboration among teachers, and I think that is exactly what this bill will do. I just do not believe that merit pay can work in a school climate (as opposed to something like a car dealership). I do not believe that standardized testing can evaluate quality teaching. As far as teacher tenure is concerned, there is already a mechanism in place for schools to terminate their own ineffective teachers. State law requires that teachers be evaluated by the school administration, and these evaluations are legal reason for non-renewing ineffective teachers.

About 30,000 South Dakotans have already signed petitions to refer HB1234 to a vote of the people, and I was one of them. I am going to vote against this bad law in November, and I hope you will too.t it really is--an investment in the future.

Two years ago the governor convinced the legislature that 10% cuts were required in all state-funded programs, including schools. There were alternatives to taking such drastic cuts; for example, tapping into reserve funds to cover the temporary shortfall. Such drastic cuts have led to staff cuts, larger class sizes, and cutting the elective classes that are so important to providing a well-rounded education. Cuts in the state funding formula to schools have led to numerous districts "opting out" of the tax freeze in an attempt to make up for the shortfall. If the opt-outs are challenged and fail, schools are faced with difficult budget decisions. If the opt-outs go unchallenged or pass, then the tax burden is shifted from the state level to local real estate taxes. Our school boards, administrators and teachers are to be commended for coping as well as they have under these difficult circumstances, but the government needs to make education a higher priority to avoid doing irreversible damage to our state's future.

This past legislative session we learned that state revenues did indeed improve and that we now have enough money to restore some of the school funds that were cut. However, in order to collect the money, the schools find themselves subjected to a law called House Bill 1234 that would dole out the money in the form of merit pay and incentive pay for math and science teachers. There are other provisions in the bill too, like removal of teacher tenure and the right of teachers to negotiate with school boards for their contracts. Many have argued that merit pay causes friction and prevents collaboration among teachers, and I think that is exactly what this bill will do. I just do not believe that merit pay can work in a school climate (as opposed to something like a car dealership). I do not believe that standardized testing can evaluate quality teaching. As far as teacher tenure is concerned, there is already a mechanism in place for schools to terminate their own ineffective teachers. State law requires that teachers be evaluated by the school administration, and these evaluations are legal reason for non-renewing ineffective teachers.

About 30,000 South Dakotans have already signed petitions to refer HB1234 to a vote of the people, and I was one of them. I am going to vote against this bad law in November, and I hope you will too.

Source