Unfunded Mandates

We can be proud of the fact that in Iowa, we averted a government shutdown by ensuring budget bills were presented to the Governor before the end of the fiscal year.  Just in the nick of time too, because the final bill wasn't presented until June 29th (the fiscal year ends on June 30).  With all the controversy surrounding Minnesota's shutdown and the recent debt ceiling debate, it is any wonder anything ever gets done around here.  Nonetheless, Iowa somehow managed to get it's house in order to avert some of the problems seen in other states.  All that being said, it wasn't until just a few days ago that the dust began to settle and we truly are able to see where the appropriations are in the new budget bill.  Because the bill wasn't passed until the eleventh hour, the Governor was granted authority to keep the government running for 30 days in House File 698 while he reviewed the bill.  (HF 698 appropriated 1/12th of the FY11 appropriations for the month of July).

We wanted to paint our hallways in the elementary school

this summer.  Unfortunately that wasn't able to happen because

of the electrical upgrade.  However, we did have several

teachers who volunteered to paint their own classrooms.

Pictured above is one of the finished rooms.  (Mrs. Hottle's 

room is pictured.) 

There was some fear that the Governor would use his line item veto pen to put a stop to some of the previously agreed upon legislation.  My biggest concern was that he would veto the 2% allowable growth for FY13.  Thankfully that wasn't the case.  I won't go into every single detail of the legislation, but I do think it is important to point out a few points in the funding and appropriations this year, especially since we are gearing up for a General Assembly in January that is going to focus on education reform. 

Okay, time to get down to the brass tacks of the topic.  House File 645 is the Educational Appropriations bill that was ultimately signed on July 27th.  The total funding in this bill is $809.9 Million, which is a decrease of $30.7 Million compared to FY11 appropriations.  I won't get into what each line item contains, but I counted twelve appropriations that will experience a cut in FY12.   Many of these will experience a decrease in funding by an average of six percent.  Probably the biggest blow to us and many other school districts is that the state aid portion of the instructional support levy was completely eliminated.  The instructional support levy permits local school districts to increase general fund budget authority by ten percent through a combination of property tax, income surtax, and state aid.  The state aid portion is calculated through a complicated formula, and has been underfunded for years.  By eliminating the state aid portion entirely, Hudson has lost approximately $13,000 in cash and spending authority.  The saying goes "Cash is King", but in Iowa school districts "Spending Authority is King".  There is no mechanism to make up for this loss in authority.

In reference to specific appropriations, some of the difficulty that we are now going to see is [that in some cases] the funding for a particular program has been eliminated, but we are still required by law to provide that service or program.  Then it becomes what we refer to as an unfunded mandate.  One such program is new teacher and administrator mentoring.  It is absolutely critical that our new teachers and administrators have qualified mentors available during their first two years of service to ask questions, problem solve, etc.  Now that the categorical aid has been removed, the funding for that program will have to come from another area of our budget.  Believe me, I am not arguing that we shouldn't have mentorship programs, but there should be a recognition that these programs cost money, and a funding stream should be provided.  Otherwise it has the unintended consequence of diverting money from another area of the budget, such as textbooks.

Granted, this doesn't amount to a lot of money, but when it gets piled on top of other unfunded mandates, it doesn't take long before we are inundated with a plethora of requirements and no way to fund them.  In case you are wondering, there are a number of unfunded mandates that are a part of the legislation.  There have been attempts in this legislation to remove these and other unfunded mandates, but it is tough!

After all, who can argue with the fact that we should be teaching CPR to all students before the graduate?  That is definitely a noble cause.  Or, how about the mandate that we use green cleaning products with our maintenance department.  That is also pretty tough to argue with.  The problem is, that in order to teach CPR, you have to pay to rent equipment, and in many cases an instructor.  Green cleaning products?  Well, they are pretty expensive when compared to traditional products.

The AEA system was also cut by $20 Million, and support to the DE for the implementation of the Iowa Core/Model Core Curriculum was also reduced. 

We are just coming off an educational summit where the talk of the town was, and is, educational reform.  Education reform can happen in our state, and Iowa undoubtedly has the capacity to return to the stature of 'best in the nation'.  It is just a matter of if we are going to be provided with the resources to return our state to greatness.   

My Take on the Education Summit

The Education Summit has come to a conclusion and now the hard work of "education reform" is set to begin in earnest.  In his closing remarks, Governor Branstad shared that he will take the ideas from this Summit, and begin the work of preparing recommendations to present to the 2012 General Assembly.  He seems to be interested in collaboration and plans to present (in draft form) his recommendations to the state and receive feedback before the final version is presented for legislative action in January.

I was most interested in the keynote address by the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan.  In his address, he argues that Iowa schools are not getting any worse, but that they have rather maintained a status quo while other schools across the country have made significant improvements and reforms to their educational systems.  One need look no further than the fact that Iowa was last to adopt a statewide set of clear educational standards, and has yet to develop an assessment that properly aligns to those standards.  Secretary Duncan further outlined four key points that has led to the stagnation of Iowa education.

1. Low standards
2. Not showing leadership in innovation
3. We have not been a leader in elevating teacher effectiveness
4. A lack of leadership to provide quality early childhood education

The one area that I was interest in hearing about was the re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (which we have all come to know as NCLB), and there does not seem to be any hope of this law being taken up by Congress anytime soon.  It was somewhat encouraging to hear that Secretary Duncan "...refuses to go through another year with a law that is so fundamentally flawed."

One of the issues that will be interesting to watch unfold over the next year or so will be this idea of pay for performance, or merit pay.  The new director of the Iowa Department of Education has some experience in this concept, and stated during one of the round table sessions that the idea of compensating teachers based solely on the number of years in the field and the amount of education is an antiquated system that should be carefully evaluated. 

It has been argued that Iowa does have a robust system of evaluation now in place, with the advent of the Iowa Teaching Standards.  Under this model, teachers who are new to the system go through a comprehensive evaluation based on these standards for the first two years of their careers, and after that they are given a comprehensive evaluation on a three year rotation.  During the off years, teachers are working on individual career (or professional) development plans.  In instances where a teacher is not meeting the standards, they can be placed on an "assistance" track.

In any event, evaluation systems are not, and should not be about a system of 'gotcha', but rather should be rooted in the idea of improvement.  All of us, no matter what our profession, should receive constructive feedback on how we are performing on a regular basis.  If you are doing the right things in your work, wouldn't you like to know it?  If there are areas that you can improve, wouldn't you like to know what they are?

I would be eager to hear your thoughts on this.  Should our teacher evaluation system be at least partially tied to student performance in the classroom?  Is it a problem that we treat every teacher the same? 

There was also some discussion about teacher preparation programs and how we go about preparing our teachers.  Most "educating" of a teacher takes place after the certificate is granted.  I think back on my own experience and the courses I took to get me ready for the classroom.  Once I stepped foot in that classroom, there was so much that I didn't know!  Think about that for a moment! 

The former Governor of North Carolina had a pretty strong message for those of us at the Summit.  Governor Jim Hunt is credited with leading his state through significant education reform.  He outlined four things that we should think about:

1. Make sure teachers are better prepared
2. Have stringent hiring practices
3. Provide strong mentorship programs
4. Evaluation of teachers should focus on improved practice and include the following components
• student achievement
• qualified observations
• student feedback

There was quite a bit of discussion about the quality of the assessment that we use to measure our student achievement, and it was brought up that in schools where there is high student achievement and test scores, there are no multiple choice tests.  We should focus on quality over quantity.  This is one area where I couldn't agree more! 

Well, I could probably go on for quite a bit longer, but fear that I may have lost some readers by this point anyway.  If there was a controversial speaker, (and I am not arguing that there was), then it would probably have to be Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey.  I felt that Governor Christie made some good points.  The most important thing he said was that we need to leave politics out of the argument.  It really doesn't matter what party you are aligned with, education reform needs to concern everyone.  While there will certainly be disagreements about how to proceed, I can imagine the most difficult hurdle to cross will be to see how the idea of merit pay, pay for performance (or whatever label you want to use) unfolds in this debate. 

As I stated at the beginning of this post, I didn't hear any new ideas.  We heard about how these ideas have been implemented in other states and hopefully will take some of these ideas and make them our own.  If we listen carefully, we can learn from the mistakes of others. 

In closing, it would be easy to find an excuse and lay the blame at the feet of someone else.  I don't want to do that, I instead want to be part of the solution.  However, I would be remiss if I didn't at least mention the fact that no matter what we do, it is not going to happen without the financial support of the state.  To expect great education reform on a zero percent allowable growth model; well how can we even say that with a straight face?