Why South Dakota’s Landmark Teacher Pay Law Failed
State has faded to 49th in average salary even after a 2016 tax increase intended for educators.
;)
Education news and commentary, delivered right to your inbox.
Sign up for 蜜桃影视 newsletter.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter
Inflation, turnover, minimal increases in state aid to education, and pay raises absorbed by non-teaching staff: Those are the reasons for South Dakota鈥檚 lagging teacher pay, according to education experts and school officials.
The Legislature expected to into public K-12 education in the first year following 2016鈥檚 historic half-percent state sales tax increase. The tax hike was primarily meant to boost the state鈥檚 last-in-the-nation ranking for average teacher pay.
Expectation soon gave way to disappointment.
South Dakota rose to 47th in the nation for teacher pay thanks to the 2016 influx of funding, but has since fallen back to 49th, collected by the National Education Association. South Dakota鈥檚 , about $51,000, ranks higher than only West Virginia and Mississippi (the rankings go to 51 because of the inclusion of the District of Columbia).
The Legislature adopted minimal increases in state aid to education in years immediately following the tax increase 鈥� as low as a 0.3% increase in one year. Then, last winter, lawmakers reduced the state sales tax from 4.5% to 4.2% until 2027.
Wider socioeconomic factors have also influenced the fall backward. The teaching profession has suffered massive turnover, driven by the COVID-19 pandemic and low pay. School districts have struggled to hire other positions 鈥� bus drivers, counselors and custodians 鈥� forcing the districts to choose between raises for teachers or other employees.
Inflation rates that rose to 5% and 8% , respectively, only widened the gap 鈥� with school districts paying more in utilities, gas and other overhead costs.
Gov. Kristi Noem addressed lagging salary increases in her budget address earlier this month, for the slow growth and proposing a 4% boost in state education funding. The state Department of Education is actively working on to address the issue, she said without offering further specifics.
The Legislature鈥檚 decision to initially slow state aid increases after 2016 has been detrimental to the initiative鈥檚 success, said Jacqueline Sly, a former House of Representatives Education Committee chair from Rapid City who co-chaired the Blue Ribbon Task Force that proposed the tax-increase legislation.
Teacher salary projections made by the task force depended on 3% or higher annual increases in state aid.
鈥淭hat got us off track right away,鈥� Sly said. 鈥淭hat piece of it was really vital initially, because then we moved up on the ranking and then went back down and are at the bottom again.鈥�
The Legislature tightened its belt after the 2016 sales tax increase in response to in 2017. That year saw a 0.3% increase in state aid to education. The following year was also a tight budget year, but an pushed the increase to 1%. Education funding received a during the 2019 legislative session and 2% in 2020.
If there aren鈥檛 consistent increases, Sly said, the state will never make headway.
Demystifying state aid and teacher pay
The Blue Ribbon Task Force convinced the Legislature to revamp the state school funding formula, basing it on a statewide target for average teacher salary to prioritize the role of teachers in state funding. That target was set at $48,500 in 2016, and has increased each year by a percentage adopted by the Legislature.
The statewide average teacher salary has never reached those targets.
That鈥檚 because the state鈥檚 鈥渢arget teacher salary鈥� isn鈥檛 actually the state鈥檚 goal for average teacher pay. In reality, it鈥檚 a basis for the state鈥檚 public education funding formula. Before the 2016 legislation, the formula was based on a per-student allocation.
Funding determined by the 鈥渢arget teacher salary鈥� formula update goes not just toward teacher salaries, but also toward overhead costs and salaries for other school workers 鈥� bus drivers, preschool teachers, librarians, administrators, custodians, food service workers and counselors. Schools also receive funding from their own local property taxes.
鈥淭here鈥檚 this misbelief that the target teacher salary means every district in the state should be paying that salary on average. That鈥檚 not the intention of that number,鈥� said Rob Monson, executive director of the School Administrators of South Dakota. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 what is set to gather the dollars needed to fund the K-12 system.鈥�
That鈥檚 not to say the 鈥渢arget鈥� that now defines overall school funding isn鈥檛 also the average salary goal sought by educators. The South Dakota Education Association President Loren Paul said the 鈥渢arget teacher salary鈥� is what educators are going after.
Currently, the statewide average teacher salary is far short of the current target of $59,659. Noem for the coming legislative session, which, if approved, will increase the target to $62,045.
鈥淔our percent is good,鈥� Paul said. 鈥淲ith the shortage of educators, we could always use a little bit more. We are gaining on states, but we haven鈥檛 overtaken anybody yet. A little more would help. Five percent would be great.鈥�
Accountability standards are 鈥榦utdated鈥�
The 2016 legislation sent 63% of the tax increase to public schools, 34% to property tax relief and 3% to raise instructor pay at the state鈥檚 technical colleges. Of the money that went to public schools, 85% had to be used to increase teacher salaries in that first year.
The legislation did not mandate that future increases in state aid would go to teachers. But the legislation did create a School Finance Accountability Board to track if state aid increases went toward teacher salaries.
Based on the law, school districts only have to compensate their teachers, on average, more than they did in 2017 鈥� meaning if a school district failed to increase its average teacher compensation for nearly seven years since then, it . Compensation, in contrast to pay alone, includes the monetary value of benefits, such as health care coverage.
The Rapid City School District鈥檚 average teacher pay, for example, increased 2.5% between fiscal years 2017 and 2023. Its average teacher compensation has increased just over 7%. That put the district below the target salary goal, but nonetheless kept it out of the accountability board鈥檚 crosshairs.
If consistent improvement was the goal, Paul said, defining success as better than 2017 has become an inadequate metric.
That鈥檚 鈥渙utdated,鈥� Paul said. The organization is 鈥渁nxiously awaiting鈥� the state Department of Education鈥檚 new accountability measures.
The teacher-pay law was , but was extended through June 2024 . Sly said the task force鈥檚 intention was to have legislators reevaluate and reset the accountability measure in 2022, not simply extend it.
The South Dakota Education Association, which Paul serves as president, had asked legislators to extend the board鈥檚 authority.
鈥淢y dream would be to have something more updated than what we have because comparing to 2017 pay is no longer relevant,鈥� Paul said.
Average teacher pay percent increases have kept pace with the increases in state aid for about half of South Dakota鈥檚 districts, Paul said. But he added that the districts whose average teacher pay increases are lower, even around 2% or 4% since 2017, 鈥渉ave something to answer for鈥� to their constituents.
Inflation & turnover impact average teacher salaries
Willow Lake Superintendent Chris Lee tracked salaries for teachers who鈥檝e remained in the district from the 2015-2016 school year (before the Blue Ribbon Task Force legislation) through the 2022-2023 school year. Those teachers received an average of 37.9% increases in salaries 鈥� higher than the in that same timeframe.
The district鈥檚 average teacher salary overall has in that same timeframe. That鈥檚 because new teachers who start at lower base salaries bring that average salary down. The district鈥檚 entry-level teacher salary increased 26.13% in the same time period.
鈥淭hat鈥檚 the danger of averages,鈥� Lee said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think there鈥檚 a district out there pocketing money. We鈥檙e doing everything we can to try and keep the best teachers in our classrooms and keep the kids fed and pay a substitute when it鈥檚 necessary. Some days we鈥檙e getting by with bale wire and duct tape.鈥�
Lee鈥檚 small eastern South Dakota district had to answer to the state鈥檚 School Finance Accountability Board for that in 2018. After two long-tenured teachers retired, the district鈥檚 average teacher salary dropped below the 2017 benchmark.
The 2016 legislation’s supporters intended that when older teachers retire, school districts would reinvest the money from retiring teacher salaries into the salary pool to increase the district鈥檚 overall average.
That鈥檚 easy on paper, but not in real life, Lee said.
Average teacher pay doesn鈥檛 consider other positions needed to keep a school running, Lee said. Many of those positions have seen higher raises because schools wouldn鈥檛 be able to hire for the positions without them.
Salary spending on bus drivers in Willow Lake, for example, increased 86% from 2017 to 2022 鈥� far outpacing the 8.5% increase in teacher salary expenditures during that time. Even then, Lee has to sometimes fill in and drive a bus route himself.
Across the state, school districts increased salary spending on teachers by 16% from 2017 to 2022, which failed to keep pace with inflation. Transportation salaries (bus drivers) increased by 25%, while pay for student and staff services (counselors or curriculum directors) increased by 29% and 鈥渙ther support services鈥� (such as librarians) saw an increase of 32%.
鈥淭he percentage-wise raises were more than teachers, but those people are just as important,鈥� Lee said. 鈥淵ou can鈥檛 get kids to school without bus drivers. Those raises need to come out of that same piece of pie.鈥�
Statewide spending on administrative services, which includes superintendent salaries, increased by 23% during that time 鈥� seven percentage points higher than spending on teacher salaries.
Those spending decisions didn鈥檛 come from the administrators themselves, according to Monson, of the School Administrators of South Dakota. District spending is set by elected school boards.
鈥淚f they thought the superintendent was paid too much, they wouldn鈥檛 have put it in contract,鈥� Monson said.
A number of school districts have had to dip into their building and maintenance or reserve funds to cover operations and pay teachers more. That鈥檚 a 鈥渞ed flag鈥� that state funding 鈥渋s not adequate,鈥� Sly said.
Lee thinks there are several avenues to explore for funding: Earmarking a certain amount of education funding increases to teacher pay, which was ; finding other tax revenue for schools, such as from recently approved sports betting; or tweaking the school funding formula to address issues such as funding for English-as-second-language students.
Districts receive extra state aid if they have English-as-a-second-language students who score below a certain number on the language acquisition assessment.
鈥淭here are a lot of students that fall into that English-learning category where they鈥檙e receiving services and it costs districts money, but the districts aren鈥檛 being funded because the student doesn鈥檛 score low enough for extra funding,鈥� Lee explained.
Over 5% of South Dakota鈥檚 public school students this school year are English language learners, .
Legislative course correction
For the most part, school districts and school boards are trying to match state aid increases with teacher salary increases, Monson said.
It鈥檚 nearly impossible to increase teacher salaries beyond that, Sly said.
鈥淎t the beginning, when we didn鈥檛 as a state fulfill that obligation to fund schools more, then the other states were zooming ahead on teacher pay,鈥� Sly said. 鈥淭here has to be a significant amount of money put into that to make that change.鈥�
The Blue Ribbon Task Force based its formula on 3%-a-year increases, Sly said. The statute requires the Legislature provide schools a funding increase of 3% or inflation, whichever is lower 鈥� a mandate that鈥檇 been in law for decades before the task force met.
If the Legislature had stuck to a 3% increase in state funding each year since its 2016 legislation, the target teacher salary would be $59,648 for the 2023-2024 school year. Given the 6% and 7% increases in state aid approved by the Legislature in 2022 and 2023, respectively, the state has managed to get back on track with the 3%-a-year projections for the 鈥渢arget teacher salary鈥� 鈥� since the target teacher salary this year was $59,659.
That doesn鈥檛 mean the actual average teacher salary has hit that mark. The latest data puts statewide average teacher salary at $53,217 during the 2022-2023 school year.
And teachers are falling behind inflation. To keep pace with the buying power of their 2017 average salaries, South Dakota teachers would need to make an average of about $59,000 today, according to the .
Part of the problem, Sly added, is that legislators often lump education funding into what they call 鈥淭he Big Three鈥� with health providers and state employee salary increases.
If all three areas get the same state funding increase, state employees get the better end of the deal since the money goes directly into their salaries or benefits.
Sly said the three don鈥檛 have to receive the same percentage increase in funding.
鈥淭hat鈥檚 not the law,鈥� Sly said. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 just an assumption. Then they鈥檙e fearful that if they do it for schools they have to do it for others.鈥�
The Legislature approved pay increases of 7% for state employees last session, in line with its boost to school funding. Lawmakers also backed a 100% cost reimbursement rate for community support providers that rely on government funding, such as nursing homes. Other Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, received a 5% increase.
In 2019, the Legislature to the state鈥檚 Medicaid reimbursement rate for nursing homes, while education funding and state employees received inflationary increases of 2.5%.
Sly said she wants the Legislature to reevaluate school funding and teacher pay and make adjustments 鈥渟o as a system it works rather than having to redo the whole thing.鈥� The funding formula and requirements set forth by the 2016 legislation have largely gone untouched.
Some school districts are doing fine, while others are struggling to keep their heads above water, Sly said, adding it鈥檚 the Legislature鈥檚 job to find out why and address it.
鈥淵ou can鈥檛 just throw money at something. It has to be with intention,鈥� Sly said. 鈥淒oes everybody need more money? Is it just certain districts? And then find out why they鈥檙e not making it. I don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 a good idea to ask for more money without asking why and finding where those needs are.鈥�
Anyone who believed teacher pay was 鈥渇ixed鈥� by the 2016 Blue Ribbon legislation was 鈥渟orely mistaken,鈥� Monson said.
鈥淎ny time you want to raise all boats you have to fill the pond,鈥� Monson said. 鈥淚f we want to do better than keep up, then we鈥檙e going to have to go above what is the inflationary factor.鈥�
is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. South Dakota Searchlight maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Seth Tipper for questions: [email protected]. Follow South Dakota Searchlight on and .
Did you use this article in your work?
We鈥檇 love to hear how 蜜桃影视鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.