By Makenzie Huber,
South Dakota Searchlight
Average teacher compensation would only have to rise half as much as state education funding under the new terms of legislation advanced Thursday morning by a committee of South Dakota senators.
Thursday afternoon, the state House reiterated its preference for the bill’s earlier language, which would require the rate of average teacher compensation increases to match the rate of annual state funding increases.
The differing versions of the legislation set up a battle over teacher pay next week, which is the final week of this year’s legislative session except for a day to consider vetoes later in March.
Thursday’s action began when the Senate Education Committee voted 5-2 to endorse a bill meant to increase teacher pay in South Dakota. The committee amended the bill to “provide for flexibility but also accountability” for school districts, said committee member Sydney Davis, R-Burbank.
The legislation would set a statewide minimum teacher salary of $45,000, beginning July 1, 2026. That minimum standard would increase each year by a percentage equal to the annual increase in state education funding approved by the Legislature and governor.
The bill formerly would have required school districts to also match their increases in average teacher compensation — including pay and benefits — to the annual increases in state funding. The amended bill would reduce that obligation to half of the annual increases in state funding. For example, if the Legislature passed a 4% increase to education funding, school districts would have to raise teacher compensation by at least 2%. That requirement would begin July 1, the beginning of fiscal year 2025.
School districts that fail to meet the bill’s requirements could risk an accreditation review or suffer a $500-per-teacher deduction in state education funding. But they could also request a waiver and work with the state School Finance Accountability Board to come into compliance. The bill does not include any additional money for schools beyond the regular, annual increases in state funding approved by lawmakers and the governor.
The amendment allows wiggle room for school districts to pay for other positions or services, lobbyists told lawmakers — such as career and technical education programs, paraprofessional salaries or bus driver salaries. It also lessens the impact on the few school districts that receive minimal state funding (because their local property taxes and federal funding cover most or all of their costs) or school districts experiencing declining enrollment and therefore seeing decreases in state funding.
Hours later, the House of Representatives “hoghoused” a bill — which is a term for striking the entire language of a bill and replacing it with a different bill — and replaced it with the language of the teacher pay bill from before it was amended Thursday morning. The hoghoused bill passed the House 60-7 (gaining two more votes since it originally passed the chamber last week).
Rep. Tony Venhuizen, R-Sioux Falls, told his colleagues that the House-approved version of the bill prioritizes teacher pay and ensures that increased state funding “gets from us, through to the school, into the pocket of teachers,” which is “the most important thing we’re doing.”
“The House is just really reiterating our position that if we give an increase to the schools, they need to give a commensurate increase to teachers,” Venhuizen told South Dakota Searchlight. “We’re willing to talk to our friends in the Senate about that, but amendments that water that down mean that less money will go into teachers’ pockets, and that’s very concerning to us in the House.”
Senate Education Committee Chair Kyle Schoenfish, R-Scotland, told committee members Thursday morning that he didn’t think the House-approved legislation would make it through the Senate without an amendment.
“50% acknowledges you can’t throw all your money into one basket here, so I think this is a good amendment to keep the discussion going,” Schoenfish said.
Proponents said there are more discussions needed and work to be done before the bill can head to the governor’s desk.
Watertown Republican Rep. Hugh Bartels, who has been in discussions to amend and find compromise on the bill since it was first proposed, told lawmakers that while the House likely wouldn’t agree with the amendment, it’s something they can continue to work on in the legislative process.
Rep. Roger DeGroot, R-Brookings, told committee members that South Dakota is underfunding public education “a great deal.” He said the state is underfunding education by roughly $56 million, based on an “unsubstantiated” analysis of school districts passing opt outs (in which taxpayers elect to pay more in property taxes than state limits otherwise allow) or dipping into their capital outlay fund (typically reserved for buildings and construction) to pay for general fund expenses.
Christine Stephenson, a Rapid City Area Schools board member who spoke for herself and not the board, was the sole opponent to speak against the bill. She told lawmakers that inadequate funding must be addressed in the coming years — especially if the bill is signed into law.
Stephenson cited statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau showing that South Dakota public schools spend the least amount of money per student compared to surrounding states. North Dakota, for example, spends 37% more on education per student than the Mount Rushmore state.
According to the National Education Association, South Dakota ranks 49th in average teacher pay (out of 51, due to the inclusion of Washington, D.C.).
That’s despite the passage of a half-percentage-point increase in the state sales tax rate in 2016 as part of legislation to raise teacher salaries. The legislation sent an infusion of money to schools that pushed South Dakota up a few places in national teacher pay rankings, but the state has slipped in the rankings since then. Last year, legislators and Gov. Noem reduced the state sales tax rate from 4.5% to 4.2%.
Sen. Davis said discussions about adequate education funding are for future sessions. This bill focuses on teacher pay accountability and addressing expiring provisions from the 2016 law that were intended to ensure such accountability.
“I know we’ve heard a lot of questions on sustainability of a bill like this and I think, in the future, this type of bill will lead to future discussions of funding, funding per student, and how we fund education,” Davis said.
The House and Senate have next week to work out their differences and pass a bill to Gov. Kristi Noem, who has spoken repeatedly about her desire for action on teacher pay.
“We’re very comfortable with the plan we have,” Venhuizen said. “We’ll keep talking to the senators, but we think we have the best plan and we’re hoping we can move it forward.”
