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.