Setting Legislative Priorities

In some ways, it seems like the legislative session has just ended. For starters, the session was extended much longer than it should have been due to negotiations that centered on getting a voucher bill passed. Luckily that effort failed. But, if we think this is a dead issue we are mistaken. There is no doubt a similar proposal will be resurrected with the 90th legislative session set to begin in January of 2023. So even though it is July and we are six months away, now is a perfect time to begin our advocacy efforts. It is even more important now, since we will be going to the polls in November to cast our ballot for those who will represent us in the General Assembly. When you have the opportunity to meet the candidates, ask them where they stand on this and other issues that will impact your local public school district. It is in that spirit the Board of Directors outlined their legislative priorities for the 90th General Assembly during their meeting on July 20. 

Choice: Let's set aside the major point of contention that this last proposal included a diversion of $55 million [directly] from public schools to nonpublic schools at time when the per pupil rate of growth has failed to keep up with inflation. Consider the following sticking points with current choice legislation: As a start, there is a complete lack of transparency and accountability to the public. In public school districts, meetings are open to the public and you have a say in what happens in your schools. You can take a look at our financial records anytime you wish, examine employee salaries, and see, quite literally where every single dollar goes. Public schools are required by statute to have their records audited annually. Nonpublic schools have no such requirements. How about the competition factor and argument that a 'rising tide lifts all boats'? Choice proponents suggest competition will strengthen the entire education establishment. If that is the case, then let's make it fair. Insist nonpublics follow the same accreditation statutes and core academic standards. Require nonpublic schools to take any and all students who apply for admission. Regardless of socioeconomic status, whether or not they receive special education, and even if they are not the 'model' student. The fact is this: the number one indicator of how well a student is going to perform in school is socioeconomic status. Every reliable (and serious) study that has been done on this subject has made clear that when controlling for poverty, private schools do no better than public schools. Competition then? Sure as long as we are all held to the same rules. The fact of the matter is that Hudson ranks near the top in every metric used to determine school rankings and overall school satisfaction. The number of families that have elected to send their children to Hudson Schools and our enrollment trajectory proves that point. The 'playing field' is level. Let's keep it that way. For those reasons, the board believe that any choice legislation must remain under the sole authority of the local school board. 

Per Pupil Growth: 2.5%. That is the percentage by which the state cost per pupil grew for this new academic year. By comparison inflation is eating us alive right now, clipping along at roughly 9.1%. Think about this. In 2020-2021 we spent roughly $18,141.72 in fuel for school buses and the small fleet. In the year that just ended our fuel cost is in the vicinity of $32,901.27. Natural gas for heating? $43,232.59 in FY 2021; $57,922.37 for the year just ended (and it wasn't as cold this winter as it was last winter). At the same time we have to ensure that we are paying our employees competitive wages. If you want to be the best, you have to hire the best. The best aren't going to work for less than they can make at the district down the road. And let's face it, the competition for talent is becoming more and more challenging as we deal with an ever shrinking pool of quality candidates. The board supports legislation that sets the growth in per pupil cost timely and adequately, taking into account market conditions. Further, they are supportive of a mechanism that is formula driven if it is not set within the statutory deadline. 

Fully Funded Preschool: We spent a lot of time and effort during the last school year studying our preschool program with a goal of expanding services so we could include more students. The end result was kind of a 'mixed bag'. On one hand we were able to roughly double our capacity from 40 to 80 students, but we had to make some sacrifices to get it done. That primarily being that the preschool classes will no longer be co-taught but instead have two separate classrooms. It also would have been preferable to offer a full day preschool and to allow 'young' five year students to attend. But to do so would require a change in the funding mechanism. The current preschool program funding model is based on the premise of only 10 hours of required instruction a week. That works out roughly to a half day preschool program, which means the state funds only .5 FTE for a student. At the same time, a student can only participate in one year of preschool. This means a child could participate as a four year old, and if they are not quite ready for kindergarten there is no option for them. They would in essence need to take a 'gap' year (which creates child care issues for young families). For those reasons, the Board would advocate for funding that ensures all four and five year old children have access to the statewide voluntary preschool program. 

Unfunded Mandates: Frankly, there are oftentimes a lot of really good ideas proposed during the legislative session by legislators of all parties and persuasions! The trouble comes when these ideas become law without regard to costs associated with the implementation of them. While there are countless examples of unfunded  mandates being placed on schools, a couple stand out. One, that fortunately didn't become law; and the other that did. First the one that didn't become law was a proposal that would have required school districts to post curriculum and lesson plans online. On its face, this may have seemed like a great idea (it wasn't, but that's a topic for another day). But, the law did not provide any provisions for implementation. Most school districts don't have the infrastructure or administrative support and oversight to ensure implementation with fidelity. To further complicate the matter, the LSA estimate associated with the costs was grossly underestimated since it only took into consideration a set number of calculated work days to complete the task. Luckily the proposal failed. On the other hand, a proposal to inspect and mitigate for radon gas did become law. No doubt a great idea, particularly right here in the heartland where radon gas is more prevalent. The trouble is that there was no funding mechanism to pay for the testing, and inevitably the mitigation that will follow. For these reasons, the board is opposed to unfunded mandates.