Implementing AEA Reform

During the last legislative session, the general assembly was mired in debate over the future of the AEA system in Iowa. Legislation was proposed that would forever alter the mission and scope of the system. Almost everyone in the education sector argued against this legislation, claiming the change stood to do real harm. Parents advocated as well, sharing personal stories about how the AEA had positively impacted their families. All of this was to no avail. The decision was made, it was now just a matter of getting it through both chambers and to the governor's desk. Once the inevitability of the plan was set in motion there was no stopping it. Calls to at least slow down and thoroughly study the issue were dismissed. Legislators who stood opposed quickly fell in line, and the speed at which a proposal became the law of the land was quite dizzying. 

It may surprise you to know that in my role as Superintendent of Schools, I don't have to make a lot of decisions. Most of the day to day decision making in a school is done by the teachers and administrators. It may also surprise you to know that those daily decisions range in the hundreds. Mine do not. But the decisions that typically are made in my office have far reaching consequences. When it comes to the budget, a financial mistake can be catastrophic. When it comes to tax policy, it can be economic. And when it comes to capital improvements, those decisions can be generational. Because there are fewer decisions and they have impact far beyond my tenure, none of them need to be made with haste or immediacy. I have the benefit of time to study, gather feedback, float ideas, and most importantly: think things through. It is important to consider the long range implications of that decision. For example, when principals advocate for adding FTE I remind them this isn't a $50,000 decision. It is a $500,000 or a $1,000,000 decision. By taking the time to gather the data, study the issue, and listen to constituents, it gives me the opportunity to see my blind spots and shape the decision. Taking ones time when making big decisions leads to better outcomes. What happens when we rush things? Well, I would point to the current status of the AEA system as 'Exhibit A'. 

Since that bill was enacted, as a state we've largely moved on to the next thing. What's done is done, there is a new issue that needs to be addressed-advocated for; advocated against. Except for one thing. The education sector hasn't really moved on. The work of implementing this massive piece of legislation is ongoing. So how is it going? Well, it's going exactly like we thought it would: not great. 

Part of the beauty of the AEA system was the fact that school districts knew that working and partnering with the Agency was among the most cost effective ways of doing business and providing services to students. In other words, it was always cheaper to work with the AEA. From massive printing projects to repairing computer equipment; one couldn't beat the AEA. However, the legislation was explicit in the fact that fees for service needed to be 'market value'. Translation: more expensive. Now in fact, it makes sense to use Copyworks instead of the AEA for some projects. We could share positions with the AEA. Perhaps a school district needs an ELL teacher, but not a full-time ELL teacher. The collaborative network of the AEA could make that happen. Simply take the cost of that employee and divide it among the districts utilizing that service, and that was all there was to it. But now, if the AEA is involved, be sure to add in the operational fee. 

Right now, as we speak school districts all across Iowa are developing service delivery plans with their local AEA. We are trying to decide what services to contract, what professional development consultants should be employed, and whether or not to use Copyworks. Indeed it is very difficult to make some of these decisions; who knows whether or not we'll need a consultant for a 'problem of practice' that presents itself on March 4, 2026. Time of course is of the essence because the AEA has to submit their budgets by February 28th to the Department of Education. Without knowing for certainty what their staffing plan will be or supplemental state aid.

So what are districts doing? Well, they are opting out. It makes little fiscal sense to share a position with the Agency when they can avoid an operational fee by sharing directly with another school district. It makes little sense to commit the expense of a professional development consultant without knowing for certain it will need to be deployed. And if it is cheaper to get printing done a Copyworks, guess what?

It is both maddening and frustrating. But at the same time I have incredibly empathy for our colleagues all across the state who have worked in and for the AEA system. Most of us didn't ask for this, but here we are. I predict a year from now the statewide AEA system will be a shell of what it once was. And I predict the work that we once relied on the AEA to perform for us will now be done by the local LEA. It will be more work for those districts, and more expensive.

The Childcare Conundrum

At the end of January, I posted an article titled 'Growing Pains'. The theme of that post was to discuss the significant enrollment gains the district is experiencing and the stresses that growth is causing throughout the system. Part of that article explained that it was relatively easy to add an extra section of a grade level when the numbers dictated such. But, perhaps 'easy' isn't the right word. Maybe it is just easy to see? After all, the sheer numbers make these relatively simple math problems that can be observed by anyone. I ended that column with an explanation that led to our decision to proceed with the hiring of a middle level building principal. Ironically enough, we are interviewing candidates for that position this week. But if you recall, I also shared that the 'easy' decisions ended there, and there were in fact a lot of unanticipated issues lurking in the shadows. 

The fact that, once the current 2nd grade gets to 7th grade we are going to have some limitations that quite frankly could lead to larger class sizes. We'll need to answer some questions like: The number of restrooms we have? Computers for students? Where to serve lunch? How long would we like lunch to last? Where and how many classrooms do we have? All of these are issues that will continue to compound. Luckily we have a few years to figure it all out. Yet truth be told, we are reaching that tipping point where these constraints are now presenting in unique ways. Is another facility project in the future? Possibly. But before that conversation, we'll need to do a lot of legwork prior to embarking down that road. Nevertheless, space is now at a premium in our facilities and will be for the foreseeable future. 

School programs and all the trappings that come along with them take primacy in school facilities. I think everyone agrees with that. This would include everything up to and including those activities that take place before and after school, right? Our co-curricular clubs need a place to meet, athletic teams need a place to practice, and the after school program needs a space for after school study. That is why we informed the 'Y's Kids' program this past fall this would be the last year they would be able to operate in the school. Due to increasing enrollment, we simply don't have space available for the program next year. While we had considered some of our 'common space' as alternative locations, the number of activities and spaces they use make these solutions untenable. Yet we saw this coming. Last year should have been their last year, but we were able to make it work by sharing space with other groups. Further, it was just too close to the start of the school year for families to make alternative arrangements. 

Remember in the first paragraph where I made the comment that there are a lot of unanticipated issues lurking in the shadows? Well, this would be another. But, we're not the only entity to experience space constraints. Case in point: the largest provider of before and after school childcare in our community is also at capacity. St. Timothy Preschool & Childcare recently announced limitations to the number of children they will be able to serve in the 2025-2026 school year. As a community, we are incredibly grateful for the service St. Timothy provides. At the same time, I totally understand and empathize with the enrollment constraints they are currently contending with. 

St. Timothy is a great partner for the school district and we are happy to have them, not only as a resource for our school district but the community writ large. They have done real yeoman's work in the childcare arena. They have continually looked for opportunities to expand and grow their programs. We have engaged with them where we can. However, it is not St. Timothy's responsibility alone to solve the childcare conundrum. Nor is it the school districts. We are clear eyed that while this is a school related issue, it is not solely a school problem to solve. Even so, we are committed to helping find solutions where we can. But let's be clear, even working closely together, this will take a collective effort to solve. If you would like to be part of the group that has been working for the past 18 months to try to solve the childcare challenge (shortage), please contact Clara Nehmer, Director of St. Timothy Preschool & Childcare. 

We Haven't Forgotten

Early in the school year we had a discussion about the ubiquitous presence of smartphones in our district, particularly in the high school. To refresh your memory, I would encourage you to checkout the September 25th installment of my blog titled Smartphones in Schools. The cliff note version is that we were seeking community feedback on whether or not our policies needed to be strengthened and an invitation to join us in our quest to learn more by reading Jonathan Haidt's book, The Anxious Generation. That post was followed up by a survey and a November 5th article titled What You Told Me About Cell Phones. In that column, I shared results that indicated 63% of respondents believed that our cell phone policy needs to be strengthened. During this interim period, there has been very little in the way of discussion about this topic, at least in this blog. Yet that's not to say we haven't been engaged in policy discussions and proposals. In fact, those policies currently do exist in draft form and were scheduled for a first reading at the November 20 school board meeting. However, after reviewing those policies and debating them on their merits, I recommended the board table action on the policy. The consensus being that we needed just a little more time to iron out some inconsistencies and logistics. Throughout this dialogue I have asked that we take our time so as to get our policy position right. 

Then in December we learned the governor was going to propose a legislative policy on cell phone usage in schools. So, I recommended the board table action until we learned more about what the governor would propose. Even so this work has continued slowly in the background, along with a standing discussion on the school board agenda as one of our items of 'unfinished business' for the school year. In any event, the governor's proposal was introduced last week in the Senate as SSB 1065. The bill includes much of what one might expect in a cell phone 'ban' bill, primarily among them a restriction on student use of personal electronic devices during classroom instructional time. This proposal sets the floor for restrictions and further authorizes the Board of Directors to adopt policies that are more stringent. However, what is most interesting, and perhaps helpful, is a proposed legislative mandate that includes instruction related to the effects of social media for grades 6-8. So our work continues. We will monitor this bill through the process and offer suggestions and insights as it moves through the process. In my view, this is a great starting point. 

Meanwhile our book study continues. In part 4 of The Anxious Generation, Haidt argues that collective action is needed in order to tackle and counteract the negative effects of overuse of electronic devices in classroom. What action is needed formed the crux of the question I asked my administrative cabinet at our last meeting. What exactly is the problem that we are trying to solve, I asked them? If it is merely to combat the distractions caused by devices during instructional time (in class), then our current policies are likely sufficient. However, if instead our goal is to improve the mental health outcomes of our students then we likely need to go much further. I then pondered somewhat rhetorically, in twenty years are we going to have causal data that links extreme mental illness in children to the effects of electronic devices? Could we be looking at the next 'Big Tobacco' moment in American history? 

Perhaps. Haidt argues collective action is needed in order to address this issue. Schools are certainly part of the solution. But so too are the tech companies. When called to the carpet for the damaging impact of their products, tech companies will look their accuser in the eye, and with a wink and a nod tell you their products aren't intended for users under the age of 13. In fact, it is federal law. These companies are relying on the honor system to enforce these laws. How hard is it to create a fake profile? It's not. However, the technology for age verification exists; but these measures would impact the bottom line, it's all about the 'hook'. If you read nothing else in Haidt's book, read pages 230-231 where he claims that internal documents obtained from Meta show they have considered how to reach children as young as 4! (The Anxious Generation, Chapter 9 page 231).

Collective action. If we use the metaphor of a stool, I think it perfectly encapsulates the idea of collective action. We need schools to have strong policies regarding the usage of personal electronic devices in schools along with an educational component that teaches not only appropriate use but the negative mental health impacts of overuse. We need tech companies to implement strong age verification protocols to protect young people from harmful content. And finally, we need parental support. Indeed, a supermajority: 63% of respondents indicated that we need to strengthen our policies. That is impressive. But at the same time, 37% disagree with that statement. And a subset of that 37% have very strong feelings. While I may not agree with some of the reasoning surrounding these objections, I can empathize with those feelings. It is then, incumbent on all of use to underscore the rationale behind a policy change while at the same time incorporating into those policies measures that mitigate those fears. 

Our work continues and we haven't forgotten!

Where We're Headed: Part 2

At the beginning of the school year, we conducted a needs assessment survey to help us with the formulation of our next strategic plan. As part of that planning, I spent some time reviewing the progress we made on our most recent plan, which you can find in this article here. Respondents for the survey included 1 school administrator, 2 school board members, 11 staff members, 130 parents and community members, 29 teachers, and 50 students. Thank you to everyone who responded. The board subsequently used those responses to formulate our next strategic plan which can be accessed under the About Us page of our school website. 

Setting the stage for this strategic plan, we recognize foremost the district is experiencing robust enrollment growth, due to both open enrollment and residential enrollment. This, along with a strategy for controlling open enrollment was discussed at length in my October 16 article entitled, 'Counterbalancing Residential and Open Enrollment'. There is no mistaking the fact that residential construction in Hudson has been on the upward trend. In 2023, 22 residential home building permits were issued, adding a total residential value of $10.8 million to the district. Through the month of August (2024) 22 more residential home construction permits were issued, adding an additional $11.9 million in taxable value to the district. Over the last two years, 44 home construction permits have been issued in the Hudson Community School District. For more information on the growth of our school district, please refer to my January 29 article, 'Growing Pains'. 

This sets the context for this strategic plan. While the current plan suggested enrollment growth, it was much more conservative and speculative than what has actually come to fruition. This [enrollment phenomenon] is even further removed for the document titled ‘Hudson 2020’ where enrollment was actually declining across the district. Indeed, this is a very different school district than it was a decade ago, even five years ago when the previous plan was adopted. As we soon will see, the challenges facing the Hudson Community School District are vastly different from those faced in 2019.

Among the key findings in the survey, a plurality of both parents (45%) and students (33%) suggest that preparation for life after high school be the top priority for improvement. There is a significant drop-off after that, falling to 19% of parents suggesting that meeting the needs of all students should be the top priority. A second priority becomes less clear for students, as there does not seem to be a statistically significant finding. It is also less dramatic when board and staff members are asked to identify their top priority for improvement, although ‘reading’ is clearly identified (21%). However, the drop-off to ‘meeting individual needs of all learners’ is second at 15%. 

The district is currently wrapping up a major construction project at the high school attendance center. Included in this project is the addition of a career and technical education center. This career center, coupled with the addition of the CAPS program and more robust work-based learning opportunities, may help strengthen the top area of improvement as identified by both parents and students: prepare students for life after high school.

While only 26% of students indicate that anti-bullying efforts need to be improved, it did represent a plurality of students. On the other hand, 23% of board and staff members suggest teaching needs to changed, compared to 28% of parents and community members indicating that parental involvement needs to change. Both the elementary and secondary schools are engaged in continued efforts to combat bullying and harassment in schools, which was indicated as an area that needed to change by the students. The high school is currently involved in a social and emotional based professional development series designed to improve overall mental health in the system. Further, the district has recently taken steps as required by Iowa Law to combat chronic absenteeism and truancy. This work better enables the district to fine tune and understand what reasons may be leading to chronic absenteeism, including avoidance that sometimes comes from bullying. Finally, the board is currently engaged in work to strengthen our cell phone policy, which may be a contributing factor in online bullying and harassment.

In the future, the district may wish to consider major emphasis on instruction, content and the rigor of content standards keyed toward active student engagement in the classroom. In doing so, this will ensure that all students can learn at high levels, overcoming barriers and improving student achievement. Additionally, continued effort should be made to align the assessment system to the rigor of the standards. Finally, it will be important for all stakeholders to understand how leadership teams are organized and understand how they have a voice in decision making.

Our next step then, is to take those recommendations as outlined in our strategic plan and convert them to actionable goals. The School Improvement Advisory Committee (SIAC) will meet this spring to help formulate those goals. To read the full strategic plan, click this link. 

The Trouble With the State Budget

My first year teaching after graduating from college was in a small parochial school with a starting salary of $18,100. I can remember getting that first paycheck and thinking: wow, I can't believe they are actually paying me to do this job! 

After I got past the euphoria of being a professional, it didn't take all that long to realize that wasn't a whole lot of money, even in 1995 dollars. For perspective, the average starting salary for a public school teacher in Iowa at the time was $21,338. By the time I paid my rent ($250), a used car payment, and utilities, there wasn't much left. Then when the student loan payment kicked in a few months down the road there wasn't anything left. When faced with issues like this, there are a couple of solutions: find a job with more income or cut expenditures. For me, this meant no cable TV (cellphones weren't even a thing back then so no cutting to be had there), and a lot of canned food! I was young and healthy, so health insurance was also a luxury that I couldn't afford. For those of you too young to remember, in the mid 90s health insurance wasn't always a 'sure thing' as far as benefits were concerned. I could purchase it from my employer, but it was far too expensive and seemed like a waste of money considering I never went to the doctor. (I know, I know!)

Whether it's 1995 or 2025, that is how budgeting works. You live within your means. If your 'means' are too high, you cut expenses. Or you look for a way to improve your income stream. That's how it works for governmental entities as well. Except, not always. For public school districts, we really can't change the revenue side of the ledger. Our revenue is governed by property taxes and state aid. We have a statutory limitation on [spending] based on that revenue stream that is known as 'spending authority'. If revenue doesn't match expenditures we only have one option: cut expenditures. 

What if I told you that when faced with a budget problem instead of cutting expenditures, we were actually going increase our expenditures? You would probably tell me to update my resume. But wait, I'm not quite done yet. What if I also shared that instead of looking for ways to improve our revenue stream, I would actively pursue strategies to decrease that revenue? Up is down, down is up. Most people would probably question my competence. Rightfully so, rightfully so.  

Yet that is exactly what is happening with the state budget. In fiscal year 2023, the state of Iowa general fund net receipts were $9.721.3 billion. The Revenue Estimating Conference met on December 12, 2024 and set the 2026 fiscal year estimate at $8.601.9 billion. Yes, these numbers are quite large, but the math is quite simple: a $1.120 billion decrease in revenue. The decrease in revenue is because of policy decisions that have been made at the state level regarding tax reform. We'll all pay less in taxes this year. We're all for lower taxes! However....

In order for this to work though, there has to be offsets on the other side of the ledger. The expense side of the ledger, and we need to be prepared to accept the consequences of those offsets. It may come in the form of road repairs. Public safety. Or in the case of public schools, larger class sizes. The challenge of course, is that we want to have our cake and eat it too. The truth is that we like to have smooth roads and safe bridges. If we need to call 911, we sure hope someone shows up quickly. And parents, well I know you don't want your kindergartener in a class of 30. 

The reality is that very few things in our economy cost less than they did a year ago. In fact, its a safe bet they are going to cost more: fuel prices and natural gas are up. The software that runs our student information system cost $10,360.50 last year. This year, that same software package was $12,262.62. That kindergarten teacher is going to work wherever they can earn top dollar for their talents. So it goes. The only way to really impact the expenditure side of the ledger then, is to implement some of those 'austere' measures that were discussed in the paragraph above. We've actually had to do that before here in Hudson. I can promise you it is no fun and incredibly painful. I'm glad we don't have to do it right now. Even so, I understand the challenge.

Except that isn't what the state has done. No, quite the opposite in fact. Instead of cutting expenditures to match the revenue stream-they have actually increased the expenditure side of the ledger. And not, by the way through a natural 'maintenance of effort' type strategy. You know where I'm going, right? The expenditure side has increased because of the added expense of the voucher program. HF 68, enacted in the 2023 legislative session phased in state funded Educational Savings Accounts equal to the state cost per pupil set annually by the general assembly. It included a three year ramp up that this year includes no limit for income eligibility. The additional cost to the state, that didn't exist prior to 2023 is estimated to be more than $450 million annually.

So when compared to fiscal year 2023, we already estimate a revenue gap of over $1 billion entering fiscal year 2026. Add in the expense of the voucher program and the state has effectively decreased revenue while at the same time committing to new expenses. This only makes the gap worse. Now, there will be calls to use the emergency or rainy day funds to close this gap. Frankly, I'm not sure that is a wise decision. 

In school districts, this would be akin using our unspent budget authority-one time money-to shore up an ongoing revenue shortfall. We say one time because, once that money is gone it's gone forever. Budgeting 101: don't use one time money for ongoing expenditures. Further, we must ask ourselves: is it wise to use the rainy day fund for a self inflicted policy decision? Those are the questions that our legislators are currently wrestling with. I suspect it will get a bit uncomfortable before the dust settles.