• Secretary's Column  
• 2008 Legislature:
  What impact will it have on your district?
• Academy targets leadership skills, supports administrators
• You might employ the next State Teacher of the Year
• Reporting requirements:
  When flu hits your school
• It’s Kindergarten Roundup time:
  Remind parents of vaccination requirements
• Recognize outstanding, long-serving and retiring bus drivers
• Hot Topic
• Upcoming Events

Secretary's Column

Anatomy of HB 1124

The 2008 session is nearly over. This article is being written prior to Veto Day so the book has not been completely closed. The 2008 session will be remembered for many things but certainly a popular and at times controversial topic was that of teacher pay. House Bill 1124 was introduced by the House Leadership and the bill was developed to address issues surrounding the concept of teacher compensation. HB 1124 was not an agency bill but the DOE did assist in the construction of the bill and supported the bill during committee testimony. Even though the bill was eventually lost, the components of the bill were encapsulated in SB 187 under the title of the TCAP Advisory Council.

In this article, I will attempt to review a few of the key components of the bill that were of interest to educators around the state. The purpose of this “autopsy” is to shed some light on our interest in the concept and my prediction that a number of these issues may resurface in the future.

• Minimum Teacher Salary – The DOE recognized that this component was a direct hit on local teacher contracts. Setting minimum teacher salaries is a good symbolic step for a state to take and send the message that the teaching profession should be compensated at a competitive beginning rate. Frankly, when you see a SD district paying its first year teachers a salary of $20,500, you have to believe that something should be done. Yet this is clearly a local decision and the legislature eventually recognized this as well.

• Required administrator evaluations – Even though the DOE would acknowledge that this is already happening in virtually every district in the state, setting a law to require it is an important step. Ideally, dollars should be allocated to train practicing administrators in a refresher course/workshop in the evaluation of teachers. This law should be passed in our state to send the message that we expect all administrators to be actively supervising teachers in the classrooms.

• Elimination of teacher tenure/continuing contract – This was probably the most controversial of the components of HB 1124. We clamor that teaching should be treated as other professions, yet many continue to lobby for “protection” of our teachers. Honestly, most of the teachers in our state are of high quality and they need no protection. The educators that are clamoring for tenure should trust that strong performance will ensure continued employment. Administrators have no continuing contract status unless the district grants it. The DOE felt that language supporting “earned tenure” gave more control to the local districts regarding the contract status of existing teachers.

• Tiered licensure system – The development of a teacher licensure program has historically been the responsibility of the State Department. I was a bit surprised at the outcry when a tiered licensure system was proposed. We will continue to look into a system that provides initial licensure to new teachers and then gives local districts a chance to weigh in on permanent licensure for a teacher. Whether this type of system is compensated or not would remain a function of the legislature.

I recognize that the pace at which HB 1124 was introduced and discussed caused some alarm among education groups in our state. As a result, cries of mistrust and abuse were heard in Pierre. As one that is closer to the process than he sometimes cares to be, I can attest that there are many bills that are introduced but eventually fail because the ideas are bad or too controversial. Some would say that HB 1124 had a bit of both. I would say that there are ideas contained in the bill that are educational topics of the future. Rather than ignoring them with the hope that they will disappear, I hope we can have discussions about the merits of the ideas as they relate to improving our schools for the future.

2008 Legislature:
What impact will it have on your district?

*** CORRECTED 3-11-2008 ***

South Dakota schools will see a 3 percent increase in funding for FY 09. The Legislature nixed funding for a 3rd year of the Classroom Connections project and changed the way consolidation incentives are paid. Here’s a look at some of the bills that survived this year’s session and a few that didn’t.

*Indicates bills that have been signed by the Governor as of March 3, 2008.

State aid to education (SB 187)
SB 187 provides schools with a 3 percent increase in funding through the state aid formula – setting the per-student allocation for FY 09 at $4,664.66. In order to receive the higher per-student allocation, schools must increase average teacher salaries and benefits by 3 percent over FY 08. If a school district does not increase teacher salaries and benefits by 3 percent, it will only receive a 2.5 percent increase in state aid funding, which is a per-student allocation of $4,642.02.

The bill directs the Department of Education to review Project Lead the Way as a potential resource for South Dakota and to develop a framework for the 21st century high school. There was no funding attached to these items. It also calls for establishment of a Teacher Compensation Assistance Program advisory council to determine how TCAP funds can be used to improve teacher salaries in FY 2010 and beyond.

Finally, the bill changes the way consolidation incentives are paid. Under the new law, districts are paid according to the number of new students they receive in their district.

Declining vs. growing enrollment (HB 1288)
HB 1288 limits districts from receiving both growing enrollment and declining enrollment dollars in the same year. It allows them to access whichever amount is higher.

Classroom Connections (HB 1087)
Among other things, HB 1087 contained $2.9 million that would have funded the South Dakota Classroom Connections laptop program for a third year. The bill was amended to remove that funding. The Department of Education will continue to search for ways to move the program forward.

Pre-Kindergarten (SB 26)
SB 26 proposed to give the South Dakota Board of Education rule-making authority related to pre-K programs. It would have allowed the state to set quality standards for those offering pre-K programs statewide. The bill passed the Senate but was defeated when it moved over to the House side.

Border agreements (SB21)*
This bill allows the state Department of Education to enter into agreements with bordering states to establish open enrollment or tuition regulation between the two states. It sets general parameters for negotiations and specifies that state money will be available to cover any differences between the established tuition rate and the per-student allocation. It also allows for existing contracts to remain in place.

School food service inspections (SB 27)
This bill brings state statute in line with federal law and current practice regarding inspections of school food service programs. Two inspections per year are required. This is not a change in current practice.

TCAP dollars for co-ops/multi-districts (HB 1044)*
HB 1044 allows for educational cooperatives and multi-districts to apply for Teacher Compensation Assistance funds for their teachers who serve public schools. It limits the total amount of TCAP funds available for this group to $100,000. This extension does not take any TCAP dollars away from school districts.

General funds and computer purchases (HB 1164)*
This bill allows school districts to use general funds to purchase or lease computer hardware and software.

Opportunity Scholarship (HB 1186)*
This bill makes a slight change to the eligibility requirements regarding the South Dakota Opportunity Scholarship. It says that a student may take the ACT or SAT prior to entering a postsecondary institution rather than before graduating from high school. An attempt to lower the ACT requirement to 23 failed.

Virtual School name change (HB 1312)*
With passage of HB 1312, the name of the South Dakota Virtual High School will be changed to the South Dakota Virtual School. A name change was considered in order, as the virtual school has the capability to serve both high school and junior high students.

Tech school funding (HB 1226 and 1227)
HB 1226 and 1227 make up the funding package for the state’s four tech schools. The first provides the tech institutes with $2 million for fulfilling their missions. The second provides $1 million for maintenance and repair projects on campus. Another bill, 1016, sets up a new system for funding the technical institutes.

*** CORRECTED 3-11-2008 ***

School leaders have a challenging job. Balancing the needs of students, teachers, parents and community stakeholders requires skill, courage and finesse. Your leadership can mean the difference between a student body that is achieving and one that is not.

While the job can be extremely rewarding, it may make you feel like you’re being stretched in a dozen directions. A new program, the Balanced Leadership Academy, will help superintendents and principals strike the right balance and concentrate on key areas where leadership can impact your school community. The program kicks off this summer. Participation is limited to 40 superintendents and 40 principals.

“The growing demands for school accountability have put increased pressure on educators at all levels – from classroom teachers to school administrators,” said Wade Pogany, who oversees the program for the Department of Education. “The Balanced Leadership Academy supports school administrators by helping them to identify and develop key practices that will make them effective leaders.”

The academy focuses on 21 key leadership responsibilities identified in research compiled by McRel. School leaders will leave the program with the skills of knowing how to lead, why leadership is so important, and when it’s critical to provide effective leadership.

“McRel’s 21 responsibilities range from practical things such as establishing a set of standard operating procedures and establishing clear goals to more lofty concepts such as inspiring innovation and challenging the status quo.”

Delivered in a series of five sessions, the Balanced Leadership Academy will begin June 23-27 in Sioux Falls. That first workshop will cover Sessions 1 and 2 of the program. The remaining three sessions will be offered in one- or two-day workshops throughout the course of the year.

The academy is a joint effort of the School Administrators of South Dakota, South Dakota Department of Education, McRel, and North Central Comprehensive Center. It is part of a larger initiative developed by the South Dakota Department of Education called Project LEAD. Project Lead is a system of leadership development that supports the work of school administrators in successfully leading and managing K-12 schools.

For information about the Balanced Leadership Academy, contact Wade Pogany at the South Dakota Department of Education, (605) 773-3282, wade.pogany@state.sd.us.

You might employ the next State Teacher of the Year

Every year, South Dakota selects a Teacher of the Year to represent the state in the national competition in Washington, D.C. In previous years, the South Dakota TOY has received a prize package including things like the use of a car for one year, a $14,000 technology package from SMARTer Kids Foundation, and $3,000 cash awards from the South Dakota Community Foundation and Citibank.

The Department of Education invites accredited school districts across the state to select a District Teacher of the Year. That person will represent your district in the Regional Teacher of the Year competition, which is run through the Education Service Agencies. In the spring, each of the seven ESAs selects a Regional Teacher of the Year. The state Teacher of the Year is selected from that pool of regional winners.

The goal of the Teacher of the Year Program is to recognize and honor the tremendous contributions of the state’s outstanding classroom teachers.

A South Dakota Teacher of the Year should demonstrate the following qualities:

• Have a superior ability to inspire students of ALL backgrounds and abilities to learn;

• Be an exceptionally skilled and dedicated classroom teacher from a state approved or accredited school, pre-kindergarten through grade twelve;

• Have the respect and admiration of students, parents, and colleagues;

• Play an active and useful role in the community as well as in the school; and

• Be poised, articulate, and have the energy to withstand the demanding schedule that would accompany selection as the South Dakota Teacher of the Year.

For more information about this program, contact Lanette Johnston at the Department of Education, (605) 773-8415 or lanette.johnston@state.sd.us. You can also contact your regional ESA.

Reporting requirements:
When flu hits your school

With flu outbreaks impacting schools across the state, the South Dakota Department of Health reminds districts that they are required to report diseases and outbreaks (ARSD 44:20:02). The Department of Health provides a confidential disease reporting Web site, which can be accessed at www.state.sd.us/doh/diseasereport. Click on “Outbreak Report,” which will direct you to a simplified screen for reporting outbreaks.

It’s Kindergarten Roundup time:
Remind parents of vaccination requirements

Many districts will be hosting Kindergarten Roundups soon. These events offer a great opportunity to share information about current vaccination requirements with parents. The South Dakota Department of Health offers the following summary of requirements:

• At least 4 doses of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis containing vaccine, at least 1 dose on or after 4th birthday. Children who are 7 years of age or older should receive adult-type-Td vaccine.
• Three or more doses of poliovirus vaccine, at least 1 dose on or after age 4; or 4 or more doses of any combination of OPV/IPV given by 4 years of age.
• At least 2 doses of a measles-containing vaccine separated by at least 28 days, on or after 1st birthday. Second dose usually given as a measles/mumps/rubella vaccination. Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B and Haemophilus Influenzae B are recommended at this time, but not required.
• At least 2 doses of a rubella-containing vaccine, separated by at least 28 days, on or after 1st birthday.
• At least 2 doses of a mumps-containing vaccine, separated by at least 28 days, on or after 1st birthday.
• Additional immunization requirement for kindergarten entry only (including students repeating kindergarten): Effective August 2007, two doses of varicella (chickenpox) vaccine administered after the age of 12 months, or history of disease. Parental history is acceptable, and physician documentation is not necessary.