Staffing for the Future

Compared to many of our colleagues around the state, Hudson is in somewhat of a unique situation. Where many of our neighbors are experiencing drops in enrollment, that does not appear to be the case here. Granted, while our residential or certified enrollment count is down a smidge, the overall headcount is up just enough to overcome the residential decrease. Admittedly, we had anticipated a larger increase in our enrollment this year. Even so, the trend continues to point in an upward direction and our projections suggest increases for the 2026-2027 school year. 

Enrollment is mostly growing from the 'bottom up', starting with the kindergarten class in the 2022-2023 school year when we added a fourth section to that grade level. Tactically, each succeeding year we have simply added a section as that grade level has matriculated, while the grade levels below them have continued to be sustained and staffed with four sections. We are now preparing for that grade level to move to the fourth grade next year, and again planning to add the accompanying section. A lot of what we have done to this point have been tactical decisions, in other words short term specific actions that provide the most flexibility.

At the same time, we are considering long term strategic planning. Think about this. Adding a section a year based on enrollment numbers at a particular grade level is a pretty straightforward decision. If you have 70+ students in an elementary grade level, it can either be staffed with three sections in low to mid twenties, or four sections of 17/18. Tactically, we have elected to go with 4 sections with the understanding that if the numbers are 'on the bubble' and the budget doesn't support those sections, we can simply forego making that hiring decision. If that happens over the course of a couple of years, perhaps it may become necessary to scale the faculty back by a position. Tactical. The trouble with tactical decision making is that unforeseen issues can kind of sneak up on you. For example, were you aware that our enrollment has increased over 120 students since 2021? That's an almost 14% increase! And, as I mentioned that trend appears to continue rising. Sure, it may slow but up is still up. 

That's why we have been engaged in strategic planning for well over a year now. Thinking about staffing needs long term and what positions, both for direct instruction and support may be needed down the road. Or, what structures need to be in place now to support this growth in enrollment? When we hire teachers for our classrooms, there needs to be a solid foundational system that supports them now, and is nimble and flexible enough to support future growth. Case in point: we hired a middle school principal this year. It was evident the number of students and teachers being served by current building administrators was not manageable. Furthermore, as staff continue to be added and those students matriculate to middle school they need a champion in their corner.

But that is not the only strategic decision that we will make, or even need to contemplate in the coming months and years. You see, as our enrollment growth continues it will require much more than a section at a grade level. Those are needs that you can see with your own eyes. It is also about the number of staff we have in the music department. The special education program. Art department. Counseling. Whenever I am blessed with the opportunity to visit with employees one on one, I ask the question: what do you need? Their answer in one form or another is usually: help. 

Therein lies the challenge. Hiring an additional teacher can be accomplished without too much pain fiscally. Particularly when you have 80 students and are trying to determine whether or not you want class sizes of 20 or 27. This task becomes much more complicated when the math isn't quite so quantifiable. Compound it further when you must determine whether or not space limitations are part of the calculus (they are in our case).

Then, there is the reality of funding for Iowa Schools. Now, that really isn't the point of today's column, but when the rate in which per pupil funding grows in Iowa doesn't even keep up with the cost of inflation it only exacerbates the underlying issues. Even with static enrollment, costs are going to continue to rise. If employees aren't going to see wage increases that are competitive they will leave. A hard to fill position like some of the supporting roles mentioned above will practically guarantee turnover at a rate that makes the ability to sustain and grow some of these programs all but impossible. 

With that, we'll stop for today. Next week we'll dive a bit deeper into the strategy. Answers may be elusive, but the first step is identifying the problem and the barriers while considering the strategic decisions that are being contemplated. 

Newton's Law of Motion

Schools and other local governments all around the state are fully engaged in budget season at this point in the fiscal year. For most of us, we are steadily marching toward April 30 when those budgets are required by Code to be certified with the state and county. Along the way we'll navigate mandated benchmarks, with the most important coming up in just a couple of weeks when taxing authorities set their maximum tax rates. What tends to be quite maddening about the process is that we do so in the midst of the legislative session when many variables are unknown. Now, I won't drone on about the SSA rate this year. I've come to accept the fact that the rate won't be adequate or set on time. In all the years I've been doing this (and it has been a lot of years), it would be considered far outside the norm if this were a known variable at this point in the legislative session.

Much like last legislative session, there is a renewed focus on property tax relief. You'll recall this topic was brought up last session and lawmakers spent weeks in public hearings receiving feedback and input from constituents. The good news was that there was a genuine desire to consider numerous ideas and receive input from citizens. Some of those ideas were incorporated into legislative proposals and the process started anew. The challenge was obtaining enough support to get any proposal across the finish line. Why is that? Well, if you are familiar with Newton's Law of Motion, you know that for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. In other words, if you are going to reduce property tax for one class of property it will raise property tax for another class an equal amount. Unless of course you are willing to reduce the expenditure side of the ledger. Which again, Newton's Law of Motion. The fact is that we want to have our cake and eat it too. Therein lies the other part of the problem. This is very hard work and proving to be a difficult needle to thread. We have to figure out if we are willing to trade one set of problems for another. Or, if we are supportive of the concept of winner and losers when it comes to property tax reform. 

Currently there are three bills that have been introduced this legislative session to address property tax reform. One from the governor's office, another originating in the Senate, and the final in the House. Now, these bills are large cumbersome bills and to go through each one side by side isn't practical at this point. So, I'll just point out a few features of each that relate to schools and illustrate the 'opposite and equal reaction'. Again, this is just the portion that is related to schools. I can't speak to impacts to other taxing authorities since they are outside my wheelhouse. Let's start with the governor's bill. 

First, the governor proposes TIF reform. As one of the highest districts in the state impacted by TIF, this is something that we can get behind. In a nutshell, TIF is an economic development tool that is used to lower property taxes in certain taxing districts to encourage development. The trouble being that by lowering the tax burden in the TIF district, it shifts that burden to other classes of property; all while the TIF property grows in value-sometimes significantly so. In Hudson, our total property valuation is $311,993,952. Of that, $72,561,934 is in TIF districts. If the district were able to capture that total value, it would lower our tax rate by $1.48. The fear in making a change would be to stifle growth, which could cause a recession and layoffs.

One of the components of this bill that I'm not excited about is a redistribution of school SAVE revenue to property tax relief. The bill proposes shifting 30% of this revenue to property tax relief over a four year period. Couple of problems with that. First, many districts (Hudson included) have bonded against future sales tax revenue to complete construction projects. This shift would put school districts in jeopardy of default. At a minimum, it would force school districts to make tough calls when it comes to the frequency with which school bus fleets are cycled or how often other equipment is purchased or replaced. As our school district continues to grow, we are once again considering the next construction project. The strategy to fund the next construction project would be to use SAVE. However, this shift would most definitely shelve those plans.

The bill proposed in the Senate has a lot of moving parts. First, it lowers what is known as the uniform levy for school districts from $5.40 to $4.49 and increases the foundation level to 100%, essentially eliminating the additional levy in the process. They pay for this provision by shifting everything to state funding and SAVE. While this would definitely lower property taxes, it would do so at a cost. We've already discussed the implications of using SAVE for property tax relief, but to shift additional costs on the state is unsustainable. Case in point: the Senate released their SSA proposal this week at 1.75% stating that is all they can afford. 

In the Senate, they also propose restricting the management fund levy ending balances. The management fund is used to pay for such items as property and casualty insurance and retirement benefits and programs. Insurance renewals can be unpredictable and retirement benefits and programs take a lot of planning and usually need a lot of runway to get off the ground. I won't get into the utility of a retirement program, but in short they are used as a tool to reduce costs over the long run. The bill also reduces levy rates for PPEL and bond levies. The danger of default is less here, because it does allow the district to continue the current rates for existing indebtedness. However, these restrictions would most definitely impact other priorities of the district, much the same as the SAVE discussed above since allowable uses of these funds is similar.

In the House, property tax reform is focused on broad structural caps, which is likely most equitable for all taxpayers. There are no specific proposals that would impact schools, and one of the provisions that would be incredibly helpful is to improve individual taxpayer statements. The only provision in the House bill that is a little puzzling is a component that would require voter approval of a 60% supermajority for any SAVE backed bonding. I am unsure how this relates to property tax reform.

Of the three bills, the one proposed by the House is most likely to protect school districts from harm. The Senate's bill is most far reaching in scope, impacting property valuations, rates, and total levy. The governor's version has the TIF component, which I'm eager to hear more about; but on the other hand the SAVE shift is problematic. All of these bills include some pretty big system changes, if not for school districts, most certainly for other local entities. I encourage our legislators to be sure they get detailed estimates from the legislative servicing agency prior to making any substantive changes. 

Creating Consistency and Momentum in Calendar Development

The construct of our academic calendar has largely remained static since the 2013-2014 school year when we implemented the Wednesday early release for professional development. Based on a framework of 185 days, it is designed to ensure that we meet the minimum statewide requirement of 1,080 hours of instruction, with room to spare. The calendar uses 185 days to match the length of the master teacher contract. The teacher contract includes provisions for 178 days of student instruction, 2 days of conferences (one at the midpoint of first semester and the other at the midpoint of second semester), and 5 days non-instructional work. 

In the interim, the most substantive change to the calendar came at the start of the 2017-2018 school year when a state law was enacted promulgating the start of the school year to no earlier than August 23. For about the last decade, there has been very little change in the calendar, structurally or otherwise. Each January we solicit feedback on the construct of the calendar, using the feedback from the previous year's input to develop new versions for review. That isn't to state that each suggestion warrants a calendar option, but if themes emerge then we certainly will entertain them. Over the last handful of years there hasn't been much in the way of overwhelming desire to make any significant changes. I suppose the stability and predictability provides a level of comfort for families when it comes to their internal planning. Aside from options that range from adding a vacation day here or there, nothing really changes except for the last day of school when deploying those options for consideration. 

We've tested numerous options over the years, ranging from eliminating spring break to utilizing full days of professional development in lieu of the early release. Those results have told us that our community likes to have spring break. We've also heard there is a strong desire for classes to be finished by Memorial Day. 

I did want to spend a bit of time today talking about the early release each Wednesday and why it has become such a critical component of our school improvement efforts. As a starting point, around 2013 a state law was enacted that set the floor for the number of hours (36) that needed to be provided for teacher collaboration outside of the normal instructional framework. In addition to those hours, we must ensure enough time is allocated for ongoing teacher development. It was around that time the weekly early release was implemented. The math on that calculates out to about 76 hours per year, meaning that in an ideal scenario, half of that would be collaborative in nature and the other half would be professional learning. Truth be told, it never quite works out like that. Unscheduled meetings come up, emergencies happen, or a random snow day scrambles the schedule. Even under ideal circumstances and a schedule free of disruption, we find it challenging to fit everything in and tend to the professional learning needs of our faculty; those that are required by state law and those that are being implemented in furtherance of district achievement goals. 

Every once in a while, the suggestion is made to eliminate the early release in favor of full days of professional development. We can do that, but it would be a pretty big swing and a significant departure from current practice. I suspect this would upset the apple cart in ways that probably need a bit of explaining. First, in order to keep to a 185 day calendar we would need to significantly scale back the number of days for instruction (days that students will be in school). The quick math comes out to about 9 fewer student days. I'm not certain that is something I would be in favor of, and suspect most parents wouldn't be either. The other option would be to lengthen the calendar to 194 days. Easier said than done. Consider this. Based on the current budget, each day added to the calendar would come with a price tag of roughly $28,500. Multiply that by 9, and we are a bit north of $250,000.

Nevertheless, when we implemented this calendar construct more than a decade ago, we made clear our intent to ensure this time was wisely used. We had to be intentional about planning and to ensure we were getting the full benefit from this gift of time. Further, the Board of Directors plays an active role as well, annually approving the professional development plan. In summary, it would appear to be time very well spent. We have been able to implement a comprehensive Learner Management System (LMS) at the high school and explore characteristics of effective instruction at the elementary school. Our high school was able to engage in a multi-year effort in the exploration of authentic intellectual work while the elementary participated in the numeracy project. And most recently, due to a changes in state law regarding reading instruction, we have been immersed in an incredibly intensive study with our instructors in the Science of Reading. In addition, organizational changes at the middle school have enabled us to take time unpacking the characteristics of middle level education. All of this work is paying off with the gains and sustained academic achievement of our students. Indeed the proof can be found in the Iowa Performance Profile. 

The key to all of this includes thoughtful and deliberate planning, oftentimes a year or more in advance. Having a stable calendar helps in that planning. It requires coordination. Frankly, with the change in our organizational configuration this school year, coordination (and cooperation) has become even more complicated (particularly when considering some staff cross more than one organizational structure). What is happening at the elementary school is not happening at the middle school. What is being implemented at the high school is irrelevant to the work going on in the elementary school. Finally, we come to consistency. Once per week not only provides that consistency, it helps to create momentum and opportunities to embed that new learning directly into practice, and then be ready for follow up work the next week. 

Looking Around the Corner

It's that time of year. The legislature is in session and budget season is upon us. I'll be spending time in this space over the coming months explaining the various proposals that are being discussed in Des Moines and how they may impact Hudson Schools. To this point, we are relatively early in the session and as such there really are no surprises. Supplemental state aid is not yet set, but the governor recommended a 2% increase, which is what I have presumed in my forecast models. Property tax reform is a key priority this year, and while the proposals that have been filed so far are concerning, there will be ample time to unpack those as we get into the session. To begin, I want to spend a bit of time with you today discussing the budget and providing a bit of context into the conversations that are happening with some of our neighbors around the state as they consider what can best be described as austere budget cuts.  

In September, I shared with you our financial report on the current status of district finances with a promise to return to this topic with a forecast toward the end of October. That forecast was completed, but some of the assumptions needed additional refining. It wasn't until we had our property valuations complete and a sense of SSA recommendations before I had a moderate to high degree of confidence in the accuracy of these models. A disclaimer: when forecasting 5 years into the future it is very difficult to have a high degree of confidence in anything. I prefer a closer view; about 18 months. Even so, this is a great exercise to at least provide a roadmap. We'll get to that in a moment, but first...

If you have been following the local news, they have been running a series of stories regarding a roughly $11 million hole that needs to be filled in Cedar Rapids. The District explains the primary reason is due to the introduction of vouchers that came fully online this school year. As such, they have seen a precipitous drop in student enrollment. The governor, when interviewed, pointed to the use of covid money (AKA one time money) being used for ongoing or operating expenses. Truth be told, they are both right-with the edge probably going to the decrease in enrollment. 

First, the enrollment drop. In the simplest of terms, revenue for a school district is generated by the number of students served multiplied by the cost per pupil. If you have fewer students each succeeding year, less revenue will be generated. It is incumbent on schools then, to adjust expenditures accordingly. Granted, this is much easier said than done because the byproduct is most certainly going to be larger class sizes (and in the case of Cedar Rapids building closures). From a purely analytical and mathematic(s) standpoint it is pretty easy. From an emotional standpoint, it is much more difficult. 

The idea of covid money being one time money is also valid. Consider this scenario. You are gifted $500 and all you have is $500. You use that 'one time' money to finance a new car. The first month, the payment is $100, leaving you with $400. After 5 months, that money is gone and you no longer have a way to make the car payment. What do you do? Well, for starters you probably shouldn't have bought the car. Some school districts used this same principle with their covid allocations. They hired teachers and then when the money ran out, they retained them on staff. You can see the issue, right?

This is why it is so important to have the ability to 'look around the corner' and see what is on the horizon. If one time money is used for operational expenditures, what is the plan for when that funding stream dries up? How do we account for fluctuations in enrollment? Changes to state funding? If we change variable 'X', then what? How are property taxes impacted? Our ability to forecast is critical, not only to keep us out of budget trouble, but to help make long term plans for the district. These models are updated on a regular basis as new information is gathered. So, what does our forecast tell us? Well, based on the current assumptions, mostly sunny with a few clouds here and there. 

Here is what one model assumes. In this scenario, for FY27, general fund expenditures would grow by 5.33% from $12.092 million to $12.737 million, and then flatten to a growth rate of 4% for the run of the model. (If these expenditure forecasts seem high, keep in mind with projected enrollment growth there is also a need for additional staff to serve those students.) It also suggests a tax rate increase over the next 3 years in effort to keep the solvency ratio in the 15%-20% range. It also illustrates a property tax rate [relief] that would be realized if we were able to capture the valuation from our TIF district. This is quite a striking number! It also shows that our unspent balance remains healthy (which I continue to preach is the most important metric in Iowa School Finance), and it portrays a very healthy ending fund balance, increasing every year through the run of the model, with a decrease of $172,117 in FY31. 

The chart above, as stated in the title shows results in the simplest of terms. The blue bars along the 'X' axis illustrate the revenue generated to fund the program whereas the line that follows along the 'Y' axis is an illustration of the spending trajectory. Actual spending is shown through FY25, and then it forecasts four different scenarios ranging from a 3% growth pattern to a 6% growth pattern. If the line is touching the bar, the district has matched or underspent when compared to the resources. On the other hand, if there is a gap between the line and the bar, it suggests a deficit spending scenario. In this model, projections fall somewhere between the purple and green lines. 

In the final analysis, these projections should be consumed for what they are worth: they are assumptions. They answer the 'If, then', question. Forecasting what the budget is going to look like in FY31 is merely an academic exercise at this point. What I really try to hang my hat on at the end of the day is what is the end of this fiscal year going to look like, and what is the end of the next fiscal year going to look like.

At this point, these aren't even budget recommendations. That will come a bit later on in our budget season (and for FY27 only). Ultimately the school board will determine which variables make the most sense for our school district and what the actual 'spend' will look like. Not only that, but we have a lot of legislative session to get through yet, and property tax reform will be addressed this session. 

As our title today indiates, we are looking around the corner with an exercise like this. Granted, I'm only really focused the base year and out year. This type of financial tool at least gives us a jumping off point and ample runway if adjustments are needed in the future (and with every variable that changes in the model, adjustments are needed). A look like this provides us the gift of time and planning. 

However, time isn't on our side for all things when 'looking around the corner'. Currently, we are in the process of triangulating our enrollment projections with building utilization. For that exercise, we are looking all the way to 2034-2035 school year. By that school year, if enrollment continues to track as currently projected, we would have 4 sections per grade level K-12. Can we fit them all? Well, that is the question we are currently trying to answer. That one, well we don't have as much time. Stay tuned, we'll tackle that topic in an upcoming article!

 

When Theory Meets Practice

Our emergency operations plan is a document that runs almost 100 pages and covers almost every contingency that you can think of. Developed years ago, the responsibility for maintaining the plan falls to our school safety official, Mr. Bell. He takes this responsibility very seriously, and I think we are all glad that he does. Along with providing contingencies for a plethora of emergency situations, the plan also requires the district conduct a series of drills over the course of the school year. You may be familiar with some from your own time as a child in a school, primarily among them the fire and tornado drill. A more recent addition to the plan is a full evacuation and reunification drill, which is designated part of our ALICE response in the event of a dangerous situation. 

While outlined in Iowa Code, how we conduct those drills is determined locally. Since tornado and fire drills have been part of our lexicon for decades, conducting them is a routine order of business. But conducting full evacuation drills with reunification have never been executed for a whole host of reasons. Among the reasons cited include the logistics of doing so, and the fact that we anticipated running a drill like this might be pretty traumatic for our younger students. (Indeed, one of the lessons learned from this episode is that it was quite upsetting for many of our young students.) So, these type of drills were conducted through 'tabletop simulations' and by holding our annual 'safety week' with students.

Safety week is an opportunity for classroom teachers and Mr. Bell to walk all of our students through our safety plans in an age appropriate manner. They learn about ALICE and what the acronym means: Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate and how we apply those principles in our school. We even have a 'kid friendly' book (I'm Not Scared...I'm Prepared) that teachers read to them. They talk about what to do in the event of an emergency and how we are going to keep them safe. 

The trouble with this exercise and conducting simulations, is that we didn't know if they would actually work in a real emergency. I mean, in theory we had a good plan. A detailed plan. A voluminous plan. But would it work? Over the course of many years we debated about whether or not we should take it to the next step and run a full evacuation drill, but it always came back to the reasons listed above. 

We found out last week that, for the most part the plan does work. I want to take a few minutes today and walk you through some of the thinking that went into the development of the plan and how decisions were made while the evacuation was unfolding. For starters, the 'cat is out of the bag' as far as our relocation sites are concerned. Those sites were considered confidential and not publicly disclosed for multiple reasons. In fact, much of the emergency operations plan remains confidential and is not considered a public document, so I won't be able to get into too many details as to what is included in the plan. But I can provide a behind the scenes look at how that incident unfolded.

As luck would have it, the entire district leadership team was in a meeting that morning, discussing of all things the statewide review of social studies standards and the implications for curriculum adoption and alignment in Hudson Schools. The first call that I received was from the public works director, which I didn't pick up, thinking I could call him back later. Not a minute later, I received a call from SRO Husidic, which I will always answer. He informed me that a contractor had hit a main gas line on the corner of Wood and School. It had caused a rupture and they were recommending we evacuate the high school. That set our emergency operations plan in motion. Mr. Dieken headed to the high school to assess the situation while the balance of the team started moving students off the playground and into the building. I hurried to the site of the leak so I could get a more detailed report as to what exactly was going on. During my walk over, Mr. Dieken called and informed me they were beginning the evacuation and headed to our first designated fallback site: Community Church of Hudson. Upon receiving a briefing from the City of Hudson, it was then recommended we evacuate the entire campus. I called the other principals and told them to begin the evacuation. I then called Mrs. Petry, who was off work that day and asked her to alert the bus drivers and have them begin staging at Community Church.

When we order an evacuation, our teachers are instructed to grab their 'safety bucket' and get the students to the Community Church of Hudson as quickly as possible. Both Mr. Dieken and Mr. Bell were among the first to arrive at the church, and as such assumed the role of incident commanders. Their main responsibility at that point included directing traffic and begin accounting for all our students as they arrived at the site. In the meantime, Dr. Zellmer and Mrs. Betts stayed onsite completing a building sweep to ensure all our students had in fact evacuated and were enroute. I was gathering information from the scene of the leak and crafting the first, of what would be many statements to our parents and community. 

I was among the last to arrive at Community Church and upon doing so asked for reports from administrators as to whether or not we had accounted for everyone. We convened in a small conference room to determine our next steps once we learned it would be several hours before we could return to campus. The decision was made at that point to move to our designated reunification site, Prairie Lakes Church in Cedar Falls. 

Now, you may be wondering why we have two separate sites for our students. Good question, as they both serve different functions. The Community Church of Hudson is our first fallback position and is used as a collection site where students have been instructed to report to in the case of an emergency. It gives us a chance to gather information and take stock of what is occurring on campus. We use it as our first accountability checkpoint, and it is close enough to return to campus if it is deemed safe to do so. It is also far enough away that students are removed from any potential hazard. 

Prairie Lakes is our designated reunification site because it is large enough and far enough away to accommodate the reunification of students with families. If you were in Community Church during this evacuation, you would have noticed that, while we were able to get everyone in the building it was very tight. There would have been no way we could have successfully executed a secure and safe reunification at Community Church. 

So, we started loading the buses and moving to reunification. Over the course of the next several hours, we were able to feed all of our elementary and middle school students and reunify students with parents in a safe and orderly fashion. For the most part, our plan operated as designed due to the planning and preparation of our team. Everyone remained calm and simply completed their assigned task, whether it was supervising a class of students, acting as a 'runner' or helping families fill out the verification paperwork. That's not to say there aren't areas where the process can be improved, which is why we are currently conducting a debrief with our staff. 

I could not be prouder of how our staff operated on a day when theory met practice.

Fortitude

The beginning of a new year is an opportunity to start fresh, set goals, and for many, make resolutions. I've spoken of this numerous times over the years so it should come as no surprise that I'm not much of a resolution kind of guy. Instead, my focus over the last several years has been to choose 'one word' to provide an anchor for the new year. For me, it has been a great way to create a gentle 'north star', if you will, for the decisions I make. The 'one word' provides a vessel for reflection without the pressure of a rigid resolution that likely will fall by the wayside in a few months. A year ago I chose 'hope' as that word, and did so largely because of the hope that came with my wife's [then recent] bone marrow transplant. While at the time admitting that uncertainty would be part of our lexicon, at least for the short term, I presumed for the most part we were out of the woods. With 2025 now in the rearview mirror and a fair share of complications, we've come to accept that challenges remain. Don't get me wrong, I remain hopeful. As I wrote one year ago, 'Indeed, uncertainty continues to loom large'. So, for 2026 I choose the word 'fortitude'. I choose this word to act as a bridge from 2024 when I chose 'acceptance' and then last year when I selected 'hope'. Fortitude is the grit that keeps hope alive when the circumstances are grueling. 

If I may, let's unpack how I arrived at this word. 

You see, I've come to believe that fortitude is not the absence of the storm; but it is the strength to remain rooted when the winds are howling. It is the commitment to wake up for the 4:00 a.m. blood test in the hospital, and then be ready to take on the challenges of leading a school district that same day. In our home, my wife Ann epitomizes the very concept of fortitude. It is in her quiet strength to face a challenge that comes with both progress and with setbacks. It's the bravery found in numerous decisions, those that have changed our lifestyle in profound ways; and in the small ones that come with whether or not it is a good day to be out of the house. It's the courage to keep fighting and believing in progress. It's the grit to keep going even when the sunshine of a new day becomes obscured by clouds.

Admittedly, we are not facing such dire consequences when making 'tough' decisions here in the school district. Believe me when I tell you that my perspective has changed significantly over the last three years. Yet, at the same time I don't want to diminish the fortitude that is reflected in the hallways of our buildings. I can see that attribute reflected daily in our schools. Regardless of shifts in policy and challenges with obtaining resources, our teachers have maintained a consistent commitment to our students' academic outcomes. Sometimes in spite of hardships that are faced by teachers and the families they serve: inside or outside of the classroom. They show up, each morning rain or shine to carry out their chose vocation. And they do so with incredible love and compassion without judgement or misconception. 

During my time as Superintendent of Schools, I've learned that our success isn't about one person or the speed by which we operate-it's about the strength to endure. Whether I am sitting next to a hospital bed or at my desk in the central office, the lesson is the same: We do not control the obstacles, but we absolutely control the steadiness of our response. 

I've also learned that true fortitude is most visible when faced with headwinds on a steep path. Since I'm a navy veteran, I'll use a old sailor's adage. When you have fair winds and following seas, it's pretty smooth sailing. It doesn't take a lot of skill-or fortitude if you will. When the seas become rougher and you have to batten down the hatches, well that is when your true character starts to show. Over these last three years I've learned that oftentimes there is no easy choice. There is no magic pill. We've had to make hard calls on multiple fronts that were, and continue to be uncomfortable in the immediacy, but necessary for positive long term outcomes.

There is no mistaking the fact this translates directly to the role of superintendent. Leadership isn't about seeking the path of least resistance. One of the first things I learned in graduate school when studying to become a school leader is that if you try to make everyone happy-you've made no one happy. So then, it's about having the moral fortitude to make the right decision. About staying anchored to our core values even when the 'public square' is noisy. Indeed it is bearing the burden of being misunderstood in the short term of the sake of the organization in the long term. 

So then, in 2026 I choose the word fortitude. Whether it's navigating the challenges that are certain to come with the start of a new legislative session or managing the multitude of decisions that sometimes cross this desk, we will always be guided by our values and stay anchored to our north star. Even when it is unpopular.