Thoughtful Input and More Deliberation is Needed

Over this past weekend, the anticipated amendment to HSB 542 and SSB 3073 was released. Unfortunately, the bill does little to assuage the concerns that have been previously discussed. In many ways, it reinforces and underscores the issues that have already been highlighted. Local decision making authority is transferred to the Director of the Iowa Department of Education, even abdicating decision making power away from the State Board of Education to the Director. This means the authority for staffing, contracts, reorganizations, and requests by a school district to enter into a fee for service agreement with an AEA has to be approved by the director. While this amendment claims that districts will have the ability to decide how to use our special education and education service funds, the director has the authority to determine whether or not districts can contract for those services. In a nutshell, the AEA would become a subset of the department, operating outside the purview of their locally elected board and the public. 

If this bill is enacted and the AEA system manages to survive, I worry that significant damage has already been done. Asking questions about how we can improve a system through study and thoughtful deliberation is one thing. When making big decisions for our school district, it would be very unusual and contrary in my role as superintendent to do so without thoughtful deliberation and input from a broad array of stakeholders. I do so because in many instances, the decisions that are made in my office can have ramifications that extend far beyond my tenure. I do so because of the value placed on those voices: parents, community members, employees, and school board members. Granted, I don't always like the input received, but make no mistake: that input shapes the narrative and decision. In this instance, it seems a study was done by the out of state firm 'Guidehouse'. While I am unfamiliar with the firm, the report appears to lack the critical context that stakeholders with intimate knowledge of the AEA system could provide. 

Again, to be clear: asking questions and shaping policy that enacts change is appropriate. In fact, I can get behind and support that idea. But blowing up a valuable organization and placing the blame for learning gaps in special education populations on an agency that provides supplemental and consultation services is misguided. That is what the Guidehouse report suggests (see page 8: 'Numbers Reveal that Iowa Students Struggle Despite AEA Support'). Learning gaps for students with disabilities are incredibly complex and multi-faceted. The AEA system would not be the first place I would look to [scapegoat] to solve this problem. Perhaps chronic absenteeism would be a better place to start? Again, multi-faceted!

This claim and lack of stakeholder input isn't real helpful. No doubt demoralizing. 

 

We have numerous AEA staff who are in our district daily. In a lot of ways, they have become extensions of our own faculty. Our teachers have developed relationships with them, know their families, and interact with them with the familiarity of a trusted colleague. As has been articulated in this blog a couple of weeks back, the services they provide to districts are mission critical. From the testimonials that have been shared around the state and the advocacy of various stakeholders, it would appear that the value of the AEA system has been recognized. When we need help with a problem of practice, navigating a particularly tricky IEP, or are engaged in the redesign or overhaul of an instructional program; our consultants at the AEA are our first, and usually last call. What would we do without them? How would we do it without them? Our legislators are contemplating those very questions right now. It appears to me, perhaps optimistically so; that they are thoughtfully deliberating those very issues. If we can agree the advocacy is working, this is not the time to let up. I might recommend the amendment that was released be quickly rejected.

Even so, I worry a bit that the heavy handed discourse already being debated will have lasting repercussions. As these extensions of our faculty have continued to be in our buildings day in and day out, it most certainly is difficult [for them] to carry on with their day to day life. Imagine trying to focus on the job at hand with all the outside noise, turmoil, and uncertainty. Yet they persevere and are handling this epoch like true professionals. But during those quiet private moments in passing I ask: how are you doing? A shrug of their shoulders and a whispered 'OK' with glistening eyes; I'm not sure they really are. 

These are educators too. Most of them, at one time were working in a local school district. Perhaps someone recognized a talent in them where they understood the nuances in special education law better than anyone else. Maybe they have the ability to develop specially designed instruction that is proven to impact student learning. Or a skill set attuned to adult learning theory. Recognizing this calling, they received advanced training and began a career at the AEA. Indeed, for a lot of these folks a move to the Agency was considered a career advancement. But the overarching mission and reason they got into this profession remained the same: to help students learn, discover who they are, and prepare them for life. It's just that they are one step removed from that classroom. They help us to answer the vexing questions of the day. The problem that we haven't been able to solve yet. They help our students by helping our teachers sharpen their own skills with quality professional development. 

They other day I was driving by the AEA on an errand after work and I noticed the sign out front was advertising job openings. With all of this is going on, they still have to fill positions for a whole host of services that we expect (as school districts) to be filled. But the real question is this: who on earth would want to take that kind of risk right now? Truth be told, a lot of the current talent is looking for the exit ramp. Retiring early, leaving the profession altogether, or moving somewhere where their skill set will be put to use. I worry that once the dust settles, we'll be faced with a real talent deficit. Because here is the reality: all of those service that we have come to rely on as local school districts are services that we will still need, no matter what. 

Perhaps the belief is these folks will land on their feet at one of the 325 LEAs that will be scrambling to fill the void left behind. A fallacy for sure since the economies of scale that were a foundational strength of the AEA will be lost. 

Budget and Taxes

It's budget season here at Hudson Schools! As is always the case, we'll spend the next couple of months defining, refining, and focusing our priorities for the coming school year. It is always a bit challenging because the budget cycle coincides with the legislative session. Pending policy proposals, the rate at which the state cost per pupil grows, an overhaul of the AEA system, and of course a recommendation from the governor to raise teacher pay make for a more complicated process. However, it is normal to enter the budget cycle with unknown variables. But using historical data coupled with known variables and a bit of common sense enables us to craft responsible and thoughtful spending plans. Even so, I want to spend a bit of time today discussing some preliminary figures and talking with you about tax rates. 

To begin with a bit of background knowledge, our school budget is comprised of eight separate funds that each have statutory purposes, rules of governance, and functions. Those funds are the general fund (operations), activity fund (athletics and fine arts), management fund (property/casualty insurance retiree benefits), SAVE fund (sales tax revenue, used for capital expenditures), PPEL fund (physical plant and equipment levy, used for capital expenditures), capital project fund (the high school renovation and addition), debt service (to pay off the bonds), and finally the nutrition fund (our food service program).

Today we will focus on the general fund, which is the largest fund in our budget. As mentioned above, the general fund is used for operational purposes. It pays the salaries of our employees, the instructional material used in the classrooms, and keeps the lights on. We are anticipating a general fund budget of roughly $11.4 million in fiscal year 2025, which is an increase of 5.5% utilizing 98% of the current year spending authority. The fact we are not budgeting 100% of the current available authority is sound budgeting practice since it first indicates that we are not deficit spending; and second, it has the added benefit of increasing our budget capacity, or spending authority. As I have reminded our community of many times: the most important of all financial metrics is the unspent balance, which is a measure of unspent authority. It is illegal to have negative spending authority and the only remedy for negative or declining spending authority is to cut expenses. We anticipate our unspent authority at the conclusion of the current fiscal year to be approximately $5.1 million. By spending 98% of ongoing authority next year, we can project unspent authority at the conclusion of fiscal year 2025 to be approximately $5.3 million. Good news.

But here is where it gets complicated. Not all that authority is backed by cash. Our fund balance at the end of FY 2023 was $1.9 million, which had dropped from $2.2 million the year before, and it will continue to drop in the coming years unless we take corrective action. It is an interesting phenomenon because on one hand, spending authority is increasing (good!) but on other other hand the fund balance is decreasing (not so good). This is known as a 'solvency ratio' issue and there are multiple measures that can be deployed to counteract a declining solvency ratio. I am proposing we deploy them all. But before discussing the solution, I think it first important to understand the cause.

The primary cause is our special education program. It is common in Iowa for special education programs to operate with a deficit, and ours has. The trouble, is that deficit is increasing. While we don't necessarily have more students in special education, the students we do have require much more intensive services; including specialized schools, equipment, one on one nurses, etc. If the student's educational plan calls for a service, federal law requires that we provide it. Since the per pupil revenue generated by the special education program is far less than the cost of the educational plan[s], it is made up by our cash balance. Secondarily, and ironically enough; increasing residential enrollment is also eroding our solvency ratio. As our enrollment grows, our need for more teachers also increases and when it comes to residential enrollment growth, the funding is delayed. While we are able to capture the spending authority immediately, the cash backing is delayed by a year and that first year infusion falls to the fund balance. By the way, the phrase 'residential enrollment' was used purposely. With our open enrollment students, that funding flows immediately to the district. 

The solution then is twofold. First, we reduce special education expenses. This can be done by simply not replacing one of our teachers who is planning to retire this year. The reduction of this position through attrition will not be easy. The byproduct will undoubtedly mean larger caseloads for our teachers. It will require us to ask harder questions when identifying students for services and developing educational plans. The second is a proposed tax rate increase in an effort to stabilize our cash balance and solvency ratio. Without these corrective actions, we could end up with a negative solvency ratio, which means we wouldn't have enough 'cash on hand' to fund the operation during the summer months (when we typically operate for 90 days without the infusion of cash into the district).

So, that is one of the reasons why the tax rate in Hudson might be higher than that in a neighboring taxing authority. But that is not the only reason. The other reason is the value of the property and the geographic footprint of our district. In a district like Hudson, we rely heavily on residential property owners and have very little commercial or industrial properties. Because of this, and the fact that our district encompasses just 63 square miles, our overall assessed property valuation is lower than most of our neighbors. This means that it takes a greater tax effort to fund the program. Think about it this way: if the overall value of property in Hudson is $278,275,295 (it is) and the applicable tax rate is $5.40 (the uniform levy) would generate somewhere in the vicinity of $1.5 million (without rollbacks). But if the property value is $350,000,000, that same applicable levy rate would generate somewhere in the vicinity of $1.62 million.

Pump the Brakes

With the start of the calendar year comes the beginning of a new legislative session. As I reminded the school board last week, the distance between policy proposal and enactment is quite a journey. The point is that even though something is proposed doesn't necessarily mean it will become law. A proposed piece of legislation has to pass through two separate legislative chambers and be signed by the governor. If the process works as designed, there will be opportunity to offer comment, individual legislators to propose amendments, and in some cases decide that legislation simply should not advance. If you want to skip to the end, HSB 542 is one of those proposals that should not advance. As has been my practice, I'll offer commentary in an effort to help you understand how all education policy proposals might impact Hudson Schools. I would encourage you to ask questions, contact your legislators, and share your opinions as we navigate the legislative process.

It is important that the process is followed openly, transparently, and thoughtfully. For some reason, HSB 542 is on the fast track to become law before many of us really have an opportunity to fully understand the implications of this massive 123 page bill. So what is HSB 542? This is legislation that has been proposed by the governor to overhaul the AEA (Area Education Agency) system. While the argument has been made that closing the AEA system is not what is being proposed, I don't see how that isn't exactly what will happen. In my view, it would be wise to pump the brakes a bit to fully understand the implications of what this will actually do.

The first question is, why? As I understand it, part of the rationale for this legislation is based on the premise that these agencies have engaged in 'mission creep'. When originally enacted by the legislature in 1974, their mission was focused on special education support. In the intervening years, their scope has been expanded (through legislative action), to include a whole host of services that have become very important to local public school districts. Services that include vast media libraries, professional learning for educators, and the purchasing power of a large consortium. 

So how does that impact Hudson Schools? Well, the proposal calls for the elimination of media services, educational services, and professional development programming. The elimination of these programs would be a significant blow to our school district. All of that work would continue, but without the expertise and collaboration that the AEA brought to the table. The professional development alone has produced dividends that are readily apparent in our student achievement data. Our junior high and high school is currently engaged in a school improvement exercise that is being led by the AEA. I had an opportunity to sit in on some of this work last week to observe the data analysis and collaboration that was occurring. As I sat there I wondered, who will help with this work next year if the AEA isn't around?

In its current form, this bill is quite problematic for public schools. Smaller schools like Hudson simply don't have the resources to leverage the void that would be left if these changes are enacted. I urge caution and deliberation. I encourage our legislators to ask questions, not only of the AEA but of their local public school district. Perhaps changes are necessary, but first it would be wise to have a full accounting of the changes that are being proposed and a plan to mitigate this loss in service.

When Will More be Enough?

To state that what happened in Perry last Thursday was tragic almost seems inadequate. It was supposed to be the routine start of a school day following a holiday break. I suppose it started out like any other day would; with kids enjoying their breakfast. In this case that meant catching up with friends and sharing adventures from their holiday break. Then the unthinkable happened. To say it was shocking is an understatement.

Perhaps most unsettling for many of us was the proximity. We have employees with connections to Perry. A friend who works there. A classmate from college. Family. Colleague. Those relationships and the short distance away have made this all the more difficult to comprehend. Truth be told though, saying 'the unthinkable happened' is false. We all know this is not a new phenomenon. Yet perhaps in the past, as we have seen this same story unfold time and again in other parts of the country, the distance between them and us have lulled us into this false sense of 'it can't happen here'. Indeed that mirage has now been shattered. 

The pattern that has emerged, and one that will unfold in the coming days is predictable. In fact it has already begun. There will be calls for legislation. Some will say there is a mental health problem and others will say there is a gun problem. Schools will revisit safety protocols. Parents and community members will advocate for the hardening of buildings. That's not to say those responses are unwarranted. They are. In fact, those conversations and questions are not only appropriate, but they are necessary. 

But at the same time, we need to consider whether or not actions we can take as communities are feasible and effective. Schools, school administrators, teachers, and everyone who works in them will do everything in our power to make our schools safe. So when there are calls to 'do more to make our schools safe', parents and community members have a common ally with their local public school. Yet I wonder, is that energy misdirected? The common response after a tragedy of this magnitude goes a bit like this: 1.) The school should.... 2.) Let's add.... 3.) Why didn't the school....

We can transform our campuses into veritable fortresses where everyone is searched before they come into our buildings through a single point of entry. We can add more cameras, more bullet proof glass, more police officers, and more barriers. More is better, right? In so doing of course, we make our public schools a little less public. Should we? And I'm not really being rhetorical here, I'm asking an honest question because frankly I don't have the answer. 

Our professional staff is highly trained to be observant and vigilant. They meet regularly to discuss students and concerns if/as they arise. The professional counseling staff is trained to intervene when needed, to provide support to students, and work with parents. A year ago, to strengthen this system we added a school social worker who not only carries a caseload of her own, but is able to connect students and families with services above and beyond what can be offered here locally. But we didn't stop there. Fortunately we are blessed with an incredibly supportive community who helped us to add a full-time school resource officer (SRO) last year. A uniformed officer and squad car parked on campus daily is an added comfort, deterrent, and layer of protection. Is that enough?

Physically, our school buildings are designed with safety features and are highly technical. For starters, the campus is locked down beginning at 8:05 daily. If one of the doors doesn't lock, it sends an alert to the building administrators and maintenance department. As an added check, our SRO patrols the campus for a physical security check. During the day, visitors to the building are routed through a single point of entrance where they are forced to go through the main office at each attendance center. Long gone are the days when one could come in the building without checking in at the office. Once in our buildings, a highly sophisticated surveillance system monitors all the common spaces throughout the district. In the event of an emergency, this monitoring system can be transferred to emergency personnel. (Note: our surveillance system is being upgraded this spring and summer.) Is that enough?

It probably wouldn't surprise you to know that we have developed plans and procedures to address a whole host of emergency contingencies in our school district. We have fire drills, tornado drills, and [even] in September have ALICE week where we discuss with our students what to do in event the unthinkable happens. Is that enough?

In my view, we have done quite a bit to improve safety and security of our buildings. For certain this is not the same school it was 15 years ago. Can we do more? Certainly we can. The question of course is at what cost, and I'm not necessarily talking about the financial implications. Those are questions that we need to answer together. At the same time, we need to ask ourselves, when will more be enough?

The Word: Acceptance

One year ago the word was change. I chose that word because we were on the precipice of great change in our school district. We had just passed a bond issue that promised to bring about transformational change to the high school. Our long time elementary principal had announced his retirement. In the closing paragraph of that blog, and almost in passing I mentioned the opening of the legislative session in just a few days and the possibility of significant changes to education policy. A year later we can look back and say, yes there really has been quite a bit of change. The hashtag used during our opening convocation and included in my email signature block is purposeful. Change is on the Rise!

We are in the midst of a major construction project at the high school. While this is exciting, it has not been without challenges and disruptions. Our teaching staff has had to embrace a somewhat nomadic lifestyle as they move from one room to another while classrooms are being remodeled. From time to time they have to endure the sounds of demolition. At others they have to come up with creative work-arounds while we wait for the blinds to arrive or to work the bugs out of new technology. I am thankful for their flexibility and Mr. Dieken's steady leadership. There is no doubt we will have something to be proud of when the project is complete this fall. 

At the same time we embarked on a search for Mr. Schlatter's successor. We were blessed to have a deep talent pool. Even so, a change in leadership is perhaps one of the most stressful times in an organization. Perhaps more so when the leader being replaced is a twenty year veteran of the organization. The challenge of course is that you don't really know what you've got until they sit in the chair. Will they handle the pressure? How will they go about developing relationships with staff and families? In some ways it is a bit like drafting an NFL quarterback. They may look good on paper, but put them under center in a game situation and the wheels come off. Anyone remember Vince Young? Yeah, me either. How about Patrick Mahommes? Six months in and it is apparent that we have drafted Patrick Mahommes with Mrs. Betts. 

In both of these instances, the change we have experienced has been good. Or there is the promise of a payoff at some point down the road. I would argue that here, the change has been relatively easy to navigate. The changes ended up (or will end up) with a good result. But what if they don't? 

This is where I'll circle back and reference the final paragraph of my 'Change' blog from a year ago: the legislative session. There really is no way to spin it: last year's General Assembly was not good for public schools. The most detrimental change to education last year was the introduction of vouchers into the mix. I know what most of you are thinking: there isn't a non-public school in Hudson so you don't have to worry about it. Or, Hudson Schools is awesome so you will lose very few kids to a non-public school. Both of those statements are true. But the argument that the vouchers will [and have] taken money out of the public school system is also true. Imagine if I have a dollar and split it between 4 people. Everyone gets a quarter. If I take that same dollar and now split it between 5 people, everyone now gets twenty cents. I've just cut your share. Unfortunately there is no way to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Vouchers are here to stay. We have to accept that fact and be prepared to make decisions accordingly. 

Further and on a personal note, we have had to deal with some pretty significant life change in 2023. Ann got sick in March and after a month long hospitalization, thankfully she was finally able to come home. However, that has not been the end of the story. Her diagnosis and continued treatment have impacted the way we live in a pretty profound way. I am thankful she is doing well and accept with grace the challenges that are before us. She truly is my inspiration!

Both of us lost parents this year. My dad passed away on June 29th following a lengthy illness. It was a long and painful journey for the family but we are grateful dad is at peace. Ann's mom passed away on October 16. She lived a very long and fulfilling life. We are thankful that she was able to live on her own for so many years. 

2024 is in it's infancy. Much like 2023, I anticipate there will be change. Change on the Rise. It's easy to accept change when you are building a new building. It's exciting! It's easy to accept change when your number 1 draft pick actually lives up to the hype. It's a sigh of relief! However, it's less easy to accept change when your world gets turned upside down. That is why I choose the word 'acceptance' for 2024. In closing, I'm reminded of the classic 'Serenity Prayer'. I'll say it daily:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.