More school funding is not the answer

The Argus Leader has another report on those who think we need more school funding in order to raise teacher pay:

A last-day compromise created an advisory council to "examine how teacher quality and teacher salaries in the state can be enhanced." The council, under the supervision of the state Education Department, must report to the governor and Legislature by Nov. 15.

The law doesn't say when it must start its work.

House Republican Leader Larry Rhoden of Union Center said the advisory council is a continuing effort "by many legislators to try to find some answers that will raise salaries across the state."

If the study group delves into bonuses, tenure and market differential pay, then teachers need to be deeply involved, says Ann Tornberg, president of the Sioux Falls Education Association. She isn't sure, though, that the study group is necessary.

"I feel like the issue has been studied within the state and across the nation," Tornberg said Monday. "There's no disputing the fact that we're last in teacher salaries. The newest report ... shows we're dead last in the amount of funding from the state for schools. We've already established that we're in desperate need of a new system to fund education."

A recent U.S. Census Bureau report shows South Dakota last in state funding for education.

Donna DeKraai of Brookings, president of the South Dakota Education Association, agreed with Tornberg that, whatever the recommendations, "you have to have the money to fund these things. It takes additional money, not just re-arranging existing funds."

Dekraai is wrong. We can pay the teachers more without more funding. The problem lies in the teachers’ unions and the education establishment. They do not represent teachers nor do they support higher quality. Dekraai and Tornberg are part of the problem.

The first step to the solution would be to not reauthorize NCLB and then abolish the Federal Department of Education. With the feds and their one-size-fits—all standards out of the picture, we then eliminate the state Department of Education. Not only will we save money by removing these unneeded costs, we will free the local schools from their regulations.

Once the standards and teacher certification BS is gone, we can eliminate the Education majors from our Universities. If a school needs a math teacher, hire a Math major. Education majors do not spend enough time with the math content, because instead they take education coursework that has more to do with transformational technics than it does with academic proficiency. That move will increase the quality of education without raising costs.

And to further insure quality and to include the concept of freedom, we need a no strings attached voucher system for parents to determine where to send their kids. It is through the free markets that teachers will received higher pay as the schools will pay those teachers that will provide the quality that the market place will demand. But the key is to first remove the governemtn regulation so that the system becomes a true free market.

The solution is simple, but the tuff part will be the huge amount of political power that the education establishment will use to stand in the way of progress. They will stand to lose their taxpayer funded jobs that create more cost and less quality. The two that was quoted in the Argus Leader report are in it for the power and the money, not for quality education. Banning taxpayer funded lobbyists would be a way to lessen their influence on the legislature.

[Comments are open for those who want to have a constructive conversation regarding the above reforms.]

Comments

[Todd Epp @ SD Watch]

Steve:

Like the new site design!

I'm not sure I would go as far as you would in eliminating education majors and an education certificate to teach. But you do have a good point about allowing people to teach who have extensive knowledge in an area. Why not let a former journalist teach journalism and English? Why not let a chemist teach chemistry?

I do think some pedagogy (right word?) for lay people turned teachers would be helpful as there are some methods to help people learn. Even as a soccer coach we are taught how to teach the game.

But I agree that our schools would be better and our students would be better served if qualified people from the community could also teach. Perhaps you can teach an accounting class and I can teach government?

Actually, Gov. Mickelson embarked part way down this path in the late 1980s. He gave state employees like me the right to take an hour or two off from work a week if we volunteered in the schools. I helped the Brookings High School yearbook. I felt my skills were put to good use, the teacher appreciated my real world experience, the kids were great, and I enjoyed it immensely. And we produced a wonderful yearbook. It also helped me appreciate what our classroom teachers do on a daily basis. Perhaps this idea could be dusted off again?

I'm just sayin'.

I hope you keep the comments open on all your posts.

Best regards,

Todd SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net

[SDWC Anon #42]

Greetings Mr. Sibson.

Glad to see you have a post open for comments. I often read your site and enjoy almost every post I read. I too like your new site design, and look forward to more of your insight.

Keep swinging for Conservatism, Steve (may I call you Steve?) You've got Powers on the ropes and he's bleeding from both ears.

The big E has some valid points above. I think some practical teaching like he mentions might be a very good thing in our schools.

[PP at the SDWC]

...I'm on the ropes, with the #1 SD Blog?

(Seriously, stop smoking that stuff, it rots your mind)

Just because my opinion diverges from Sibby's from time to time doesn't mean we disagree on everything. It doesn't mean we agree on everything, either.

On this issue, I think reducing the bureaucracy is good, but I think it's best done through a return to more local control.

Steve's approach, while noteworthy, is a bit more extreme - to the point where it's unworkable.

[Meg]

Steve,

I stumbled across your blog while I was looking at news articles in education for a college course of mine. I am a student going to school for Spanish Education, and I must admit, I was really shocked to find that anyone would be open to the idea of eliminating Teacher Education programs in universities. As a student in one such program I cannot FATHOM what a "math major" would do if they just began "teaching" after graduating. Just because that graduate has a thorough knowledge of math does not mean that they could begin to teach others to understand, use, and appreciate math.

Requiring that teachers have a thorough knowledge of their content area is most definitely important. It's equally important as understanding students, how they communicate, and how they learn best. That is why the State of South Dakota requires it's teachers to be certified and in order to obtain that certification they must take a mandatory PRAXIS exam.

Teachers are the foundation of our country, working as educators, counselors, disciplinarians, and cheerleaders for their students. I really hope that you will change your opinion of the South Dakota Department of Education and their standards.

Sincerely,

Meg

[Sibby's response: Just because you have a degree in education does not guarantee that you can communicate and pass knowledge on to others. But if you don’t have the knowledge, then you definitely won’t be able to pass it on. A sound foundation in liberal arts will also include English, which will take care of the communication issues. The reason we don’t have that sound foundation in liberal arts is because the schools are spending way too much time playing psychologist, which methods are not good substitutes for disciple. I cannot agree with your position that there is adequate discipline in schools. Recently a teacher was attacked by her students, and the school did not back up the teacher.]