In Defense of the System

As we celebrate teacher appreciation week, a time traditionally reserved for gratitude, it is difficult to ignore the growing disconnect between the headlines and the hallways. The 5 o'clock news or latest Facebook post does not reflect the reality of what is happening inside our schools. While this week should be focused on the thousands of public servants who have dedicated their lives to serving our children, their actual work is often obscured by a thick fog of digital outrage and political rhetoric. We have found ourselves in a strange moment where the reality of the classroom is being overshadowed by viral 'ghost stories' and manufactured outrage. So during this teacher appreciation week, I encourage you to recognize the vital, grounded work they do every single day. 

I implore you to give very little credence to what you read on Facebook when it comes to what happens in public schools, the curriculum that is taught, or any other wild accusation that is levied. At the same time, I might suggest when candidates for political office make absurd claims about our schools, we take the opportunity to ask some clarifying and pointed questions about those allegations. We need specifics. And we need examples. The fact is this: The vast majority of these statements are made by folks whose own children don't even attend public schools. The only purpose [they seem to serve] is to provide a convenient foil for those working very hard at privatizing our educational system-and succeeding. 

I'm not sure where these claims are coming from. Perhaps there is some story that gets twisted out of proportion and spreads like wildfire on the 'socials'. By the time it reaches our ears it is so far from the truth that anyone who stops for just a second to think it through will realize it is balderdash. Consider this: Student 'A' asks a teacher to use the restroom and the teacher refuses. Nevermind whether or not the request was legitimate. Maybe it was, and the teacher should have allowed it; yet that isn't even the point. In any event, the student goes home and tells mom and dad, who may be rightfully upset. They call the school to sort it out. Or instead they post something on Facebook. It gets shared. It multiplies and begins to mutate, ever so slightly. Before you know it, the story has evolved into the truly bizarre and a superintendent in a school district two hundred miles from the epicenter gets a phone call wanting to know why they are allowing students to use litter boxes in lieu of the restroom. What?  

Something broke in our society post covid and I haven't quite been able to figure it out. The result has been some pretty significant paradigm shifts in the public education system. Now, I'll be the first to admit that change can be difficult and that it is sometimes necessary. But it should be based on reality as opposed to made up issues. I can remember taking a phone call following our re-opening after covid and being accused of teaching critical race theory in our schools. I've been in this business for 31 years and have seen a lot; but I literally had no idea what this person was talking about. Or what critical race theory even was. For the record (and for the one thousandth time), we do not teach that concept here or in any other public school that I am aware of in the state of Iowa. 

The latest iterations are more of the same with new twists; partly because, and I can only assume, we have an election coming up this fall. The themes include such claims that public schools have an obsession with, and gender focused agenda. The curriculum is riddled with marxist ideas. We are teaching kids to hate America. Again, these allegations are made by individuals that have no experience with public schools. Their kids go elsewhere. Is it because this type of manufactured outrage is what is needed to secure votes? Or is it perhaps an even more sinister attempt to further undermine our public education system in effort to funnel more money toward privatization?

Now then, at the same time we must admit that we are far from perfect. Have some schools 'painted outside the lines' when it comes to some of these issues? Yes. Is it conceivable that someone reached a bit too far in their application of what is just and right, perhaps imparting an opinion that is ideologically in conflict with local norms? Likely. Yet here is the problem. When we use these isolated 'one off' examples to indict an entire system it becomes problematic. The trouble of course is that it may not appear to be an isolated incident: because social media only amplifies the triggering event. 

It's a little bit offensive when such outlandish claims are made by people who quite frankly should know better, but don't. Because they don't have any real experience with the system. Claims that are meant to be incendiary and easily disproven. Allegations without merit which are purported to be so widespread that the entire system is guilty as charged. Not only is it offensive, it is demoralizing to the almost 40,000 public servants who have dedicated their professional lives to educating our youth in more that 1,300 public schools across the state. Teachers and administrators who Pledge Allegiance to the same flag as all their neighbors. Public school educators who, believe it or not have a key role to play when it comes to protecting this constitutional republic. After all, Thomas Jefferson believed that public education was the bedrock of a free society and once said, "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." 

So then, as we celebrate teacher appreciation week, I ask you to look past the digital noise and manufactured headlines. Instead, look at the dedicated professionals in our schools who show up every morning-not to push an agenda, but to solve problems, offer encouragement, and unlock the potential of the next generation. These public school teachers are the heartbeat of our community; they are the coaches, the mentors, and your neighbors who have chosen a life of service in the face of increasingly loud and unjustified criticism. If you want to know what's going in our our schools, don't check Facebook. Check with a teacher. Better yet, thank one. They are doing the hard and essential work of preserving the 'bedrock of a free society' that Jefferson envisioned, and they deserve our trust, our respect, and our gratitude. Not just this week, but every week. 

Special Delivery Plan

We've spent the last couple of weeks discussing some of the strengths, and opportunities for improving our special education program here at Hudson. If anything, you have probably learned that the mechanics and implementation of special education is complicated. This is because while public schools are a function and responsibility of the state, federal law governs special education. It also provides a portion of funding for the program, which can be used as a hammer if the school is out of compliance. Prior to 1975 children with disabilities were often excluded from public schools or outright denied appropriate education. Public law 94-142 was enacted by Congress in 1975, reauthorized in 1990, and in 2004. Today we know that law as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The genesis behind the original and subsequently re-authorized 'Education for All Handicapped Children' was to ensure that children with disabilities received a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in their Least Restrictive Environment. The law mandates public schools go to great lengths to ensure implementation, which is one of the reasons special education programs are costly. That, and the fact that the funding model hasn't been updated in years. Which means cost overruns are borne by property tax payers. Hint: if we want to reduce property taxes in Iowa, which we do, a great place to start would be updating this model. The statewide special education deficit in Iowa in FY2024 was more than $200 million. All property taxes.

You see, the beauty of public education is that it is tuition free and that it is intended to serve all students, regardless of disability. That wasn't always the case prior to the enactment of PL 94-142. It went a step further though, by saying that, not only are they entitled to FAPE, the are entitled to participate in the least restrictive environment. The least restrictive environment [being] the general education classroom with their peers to the maximum extent that is appropriate. Oftentimes, students served in special education programs have specific content areas that have been identified as goal areas for improvement. In order to show progress toward these goals, they may receive specially designed instruction; which by its very definition is different from their general education counterparts. It is not uncommon then, for that instruction to occur outside the general education setting in the special education classroom: which make the environment for the student more restrictive. 

The law also requires each student served in the program to have a tailored educational plan (IEP) that outlines the goals for the student, the amount of specially designed instruction that will be provided and where, and progress monitoring mechanisms to regularly check to see if the instruction is effective. There are also numerous procedural safeguards in place that ensure parents are part of the decision making process and that no changes are made to the plan without consultation of the entire IEP team, of which the parent is a member. 

Internally, all of this is governed by our District Developed Service Delivery Plan. Primarily, there are two key components of this plan. The first is the continuum of services that is offered as part of our public school system. In general terms, it describes services beginning in preschool and continuing into the regular K-12 academic program up to the age of 21. This part of the plan describes a range of services from K-12 consultation (least restrictive) to K-12 Special Class, which may include special schools (most restrictive). Students in our community are served all along our defined continuum of services in Hudson Schools. 

The other key component in the plan is the monitoring and evaluation of caseloads. You may recall that I devoted some time to this discussion in my article last week. If you recall, each student served in the program is weighted from 1-3 dependent on their level of services. The number of points in a caseload then, does not translate into the number of students in the class. Special education classes are typically smaller due to the level of intensive instruction that is delivered, the collaboration that needs to occur between the general education and special education teacher, and the management of the paperwork. 

Ultimately, navigating the complexities of special education is a balancing act between rigorous federal mandates, fiscal realities, and our unwavering commitment to ALL our students. While the financial structures—and the property tax burden they create—clearly require a modern solution at the state level, our focus in Hudson remains on the individual child. By maintaining a robust District Developed Service Delivery Plan and supporting our dedicated educators, we ensure that every student and parent has a seat at the table and a path toward success. We aren't just meeting a legal requirement; we are fulfilling a promise to every family in our community that their child belongs here.

Improving our Special Education Program for All Stakeholders

We were not in search of a pat on the back when we commissioned a study of our special education program. Granted, the platitudes were very nice, but that wasn't the point. As I mentioned last week, one of the overarching concerns was to understand whether or not we had the right mix of administrative support for the general supervision of the program. Based on our analysis of the report, we do. In my time with you last week, we discussed all the positive attributes of our program and recognize there is a lot to be proud of. Our staff, teachers and paraeducators alike work incredibly hard and are getting solid results. We continue to ask more and more of them each passing day, and they do their jobs without complaint. But at the same time, we have to recognize and be sensitive of asking too much. Today I want to share with you our priorities moving forward and some of the recommendations the report proposes.

There really are three main takeaways outlined in the report where opportunities for improvement exist, and all are connected in one way or another. Behavioral support systems, time and collaboration, and ensuring equitable implementation of IEPs through enhanced professional development and accountability structures. 

In recent years, we have begun to see much more complex behavior needs from some of our students. Correcting problematic behavior starts with a comprehensive schoolwide behavior support system. You may be familiar with the 'Keys of Excellence' program that is currently in place in our school district. What makes programs like these effective is consistency across each grade level throughout the district. The implementation of a common language, clear expectations, and progressive consequences that are consistent for each student, especially those served in our special education programs that require specially designed instruction for behavior. Truth be told, Keys of Excellence predates me and was implemented well before my tenure began. In the intervening years as the natural turnover of staff has occurred, the fidelity with which the program was originally implemented has begun to deteriorate. With new counseling staff coming onboard next year this is a perfect opportunity to 'reset' the program and perhaps take the time to see if another program might better serve the district. This could enable us to implement a system that allows educators to regularly review this 'Tier One' data and address behavioral concerns in the same manner as academic concerns part of a full system of support with 'Tier Three' interventions being the most intense. 

Time to do the work and collaborate with colleagues was an area of concern identified by the our professional staff. Teachers have indicated they are having difficulty keeping up with their workload. This includes the time that is required to collaborate with other teachers on matters of instruction as outlined in the student IEP (individualized education program). I'm not surprised. One disruptive student can take a tremendous amount of time and energy to manage. Additionally, the paperwork trail that is created with an IEP is voluminous and takes constant updating and record-keeping. Part of the reason for this feeling of overload is a problem of our own making. You see, the staffing pattern that we anticipated a year ago did not end up being the reality that materialized. Unlike general education where class sizes are evenly divided, special educators workload is governed by our service delivery plan and a concept known as caseload. Students served in special education are weighted from 1 to 3 points depending on the intensity of the services needed, and our plan calls for no more than 20 points per teacher. Now, while our caseloads are within the margins, in many instances it has still been very taxing on staff. This is because of the staffing pattern deployed. Logistically, caseloads should be banded together: K-2; 3-4; 5-6; 7-8; 9-10; 11-12. That is not the approach we took this year. Special education teachers may have had a second grade student as well as a fifth grade student. On paper, we were able to balance the caseloads. In practice, it made the management and mandated collaboration time almost impossible to coordinate. Granted, determining caseloads when there is a transitory nature to the program makes this all the more difficult. However, moving forward we are being much more thoughtful, not just about whether or not it works on paper, but if the logistics of scheduling are also appropriate. Our hope is this will enable us to establish protected collaboration time for special education teachers and general education teachers across the district. 

Finally we now turn to enhanced professional development and accountability structures. One could probably argue that sometimes the details of the IEP are lost in translation when it comes to deploying accommodations in the general education setting. Perhaps this is one of the reasons legislation was posed that would require general education teachers to read each IEP from top to bottom. Perhaps theoretically a good idea (or colloquially speaking, 'looks good on paper'), but in practice I don't believe this will have the desired outcome. Instead, an approach that incorporates professional development into practice would have a much better chance of being implemented with fidelity. Understanding where to find the accommodations page and reasons for the accommodations is likely more important than analyzing the trendline or being able to explain the 'effect of disability statement' with any level of coherence. To help with some of this work, next year we have appointed a teacher leader to serve in this capacity. In addition to carrying a caseload, they will assist in the development of quality and useful professional learning for all staff; professional development that also links the relationship between the special education, general education; and perhaps most importantly the paraeducator. After all, they are the ones most likely to be tasked with implementing the accommodation. Shouldn't they understand the reasons why as well?

We are proud of the work of our special education staff and the work they do! The results of our study underscored the results they get daily. At the same time though, we recognize that changes can be made that can take some of the pressure off. Hopefully these changes will assist in that effort. 

Bright Spots in Our Special Education Program

When the legislation was enacted changing the operational posture of the AEA system in Iowa, it caused quite a sea change in public schools. Many of the services that we once relied on were eliminated and support that we had relied on was no longer available. There were a lot of concerns with this legislation, and most of them have been voiced here. But, perhaps the one that gave me the most heartburn was special education support. Like most smaller school districts in the state, we relied on the AEA to provide guidance and a safety net for special education operations. You see, special education is a very complex program with rules and regulations that seem to be constantly changing. We have to deal with a mix of federal and state funding, be cognizant of a concept known and 'least restrictive environment', have a basic working knowledge of Medicaid, and understand what specially designed instruction looks like. Perhaps most importantly, ensure that our special education teachers are getting the support they need through general supervision of the program. 

A lot of the aforementioned were concepts that we relied on the AEA to assist with. Good thing too. You see, by trade I'm a music teacher. The skill set between teaching a student to sing or play the piano is quite different than those needed to develop and deliver specially designed instruction. Likewise, the other three principals on the team aren't special education teachers by trade either (although they are light years ahead of me when it comes to this type of expertise). Indeed, this phenomenon isn't unique to Hudson. That is why many of my colleagues around the state made the decision to add special education directors to their districts: administrators with specific expertise in special education. A sound decision for sure, one that I would unwise to second guess. Financially, it's not a heavy lift. 10% of the special education funding that flowed to the AEA can now be retained by individual districts ($29,329 for Hudson Schools next year). If you share that position with other school districts and pool the funds together, in essence it becomes cost neutral. Plus there is the added benefit of operational sharing incentives. 

Yet, when overtures to participate in a sharing arrangement for a special education director were made, I resisted. Not because I thought this wasn't a good idea. But because I thought it was first important to 'pop the hood' on our special education program. Before adding an additional layer of administration, I thought it first important to understand with clarity what exactly was happening in that program. And to be completely honest, an opportunity for us administrators to examine our blind spots when it comes to special education administration. So, we commissioned a study of the program, led by the AEA.

We started this process way back at the beginning of the school year by identifying exactly what it was we hoped to accomplish and why. It was also important to understand why our special education deficit was so high and if there were efficiencies that could be uncovered. During the course of this school year, we refined our scope and reviewed data metrics both internal and external. Teams observed our teachers delivering instruction. Examined the construct of IEPs. Conducted focus groups and administered surveys. And compared our data to peers.

The results. Well, they were quite impressive. We found that our identification rates are consistently below state averages and fairly stable across all buildings, with lower rates occurring at the high school. This is a positive finding because it suggests our educators have a strong problem solving process in place. When a student is experiencing difficulty in the classroom, special education should never be the first intervention. We have to ask the question: Is this a skill deficit, or a processing issue? If the answer is skill deficit, then special education is unlikely to yield the result desired. Further, lower identification rates at the high school suggests the overall program is performing as designed. The reason there are fewer students at the high school is because the service is no longer needed. Our goal is for students receiving special education services to not need them; and instead receive instruction in their least restrictive environment (LRE). 

Least restrictive environment then, is in regular class with their age appropriate peer group. Again, another bright spot for our program. Our LRE rate exceeds state targets, which indicates our special education students are in the regular classroom more that the statewide average. And with an exit rate of 7.5%, we are higher than that 4.5% exit rate realized statewide.

One of the findings that I was most proud of was in compliance. The majority of IEPs are finalized within 15 days of the scheduled meeting, and the observable data reveals implementation of specially designed instruction that has been outlined in the IEP is actually being delivered. This tells me that the developed plan is not offering mere platitudes, but delivering on promises and expectations. Additionally, the instruction truly is specialized and individual to each student, as opposed to 'more of the same' general instruction. 

Ensuring compliance with the law, designing quality instruction, and ensuring students are in the least restrictive environment means little unless we are moving the needle on student outcomes. Our analysis suggests that is the case. Students are exceeding statewide ISASP proficiency benchmarks for students with IEPs. Graduation rates surpass state rates. Dropout rates are consistent with those who do not have an IEP. 

One might think everything that has been highlighted as strengths in this column goes without saying. The fact is, they are not. During my time on the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners one of the most consistent issues we dealt with were teachers unable to properly manage the workload that comes with being a special education teacher. One of the first things to suffer is progress monitoring. We do not have that problem here. I had always believed our teachers were knocking it out of the park on a daily basis. Of course, I'm admittedly bias (and still not a special education teacher). Of course one would think that IEPs are well written and professional. Yet, I can attest to the fact that we have inherited some very low quality plans in the past; ones that our instructors have had to fix. 

The takeaway is that we have an outstanding special education program and can prove it. It is outstanding because of the professionals who are working with our students every day. Do we need an additional administrator to oversee this program? Absolutely not. However, there are a few tweaks that we can make in the program to make it even better, not only for our students but our teachers. We'll tackle some of those next week. In the meantime, if you are interested in reading the full report, please check it out on our website. 

Losing the Plotline

At best I am three degrees removed from the classroom. To provide a bit of perspective, oftentimes visitors to our office can have a hard time reconciling the fact we are even in a school. My day to day work experience may find me buried in spreadsheets, signing purchase orders, answering email or arguing with a vendor on the phone. I may be in a meeting hearing from direct reports, facilitating a debate, or planning for future building use. Perhaps there is a disciplinary issue that needs to be addressed with an employee. Or, at other times, I may find myself balancing whether or not it makes sense to put a new transmission in a school bus or just buy a new school bus. Over the winter, I monitor market trends to determine the best time to purchase bulk natural gas. Then in the spring we consider health trends and how best to manage our PBM. Budgets. Buses. Buildings. Benefits. I would imagine this list of tasks and responsibilities would lead few to conclude these are in the wheelhouse of a school superintendent. 

When studying to become a superintendent, there is this utopian idea of a concept known as instructional leadership. By definition, this is someone who is prioritizing what is happening inside the classrooms. Focusing on the quality of instruction and the effectiveness of curriculum. The professional growth and development of teachers. Sure, from a macro level I can make that argument. But what is happening in 5th grade this week? I can't help you with that. Those attributes are more closely situated within the scope of what our principals do on a daily basis. There was a time not to many years back when, at the beginning of the school year I would offer platitudes to our new teachers that they would see me on a regular basis, in their classrooms and hallways. I'd start out OK, but it didn't take long before a crisis with the HVAC system would scramble the schedule.

Now, I'm not saying all this to complain. Quite the contrary. I knew what I was getting into and find the work incredibly satisfying and rewarding. I know that if a question or problem comes across my desk, no one else has been able to solve it (that's not to say every solution I've come up with may be popular-or even right). The point is that, admittedly, it is easy to lose the plotline from the chair I currently occupy. I can get so wrapped up in the spreadsheet on my screen I forget, that at this very instant a lightbulb moment happened in first grade. A student who finally mastered place value, or adding and subtracting within 10. Or the magic in agricultural mechanics, when the student has figured out with a great deal of satisfaction just the right touch needed to ensure a consistent and strong weld bead. 

We're at the point in our school year where a bit of perspective and introspection is helpful; if not for you, perhaps me? You see, in the fall we set the stage for the year that is about to unfold. Here we hold all of our hopes, dreams, and aspirations for the students that are preparing to walk through the doors with dreams of their own. Very soon thereafter, reality sets in and the daily grind takes over. Before we know it, we are in the throes of winter and what I often refer to as the 'long stretch'. Now, the long stretch is over. Our days of cold, wet, and downright unpleasantness are beginning to wane. Days of warm sunshine are replacing the cold and dark of winter. It's springtime in Iowa-now it may not really feel like it today, but trust me. Warmer days are in the forecast. 

But more importantly, before our very eyes a transformation is taking place inside our schools. You see, also at the beginning of the school year, I have the 'You have one job' speech with our employees. Turn the students in your classrooms into 3rd graders....and so on down the line. Now that we are through the banality of the beginning of the school year and the long stretch is in our rearview mirrors, I can see it. Those 2nd graders? Well, they are starting to look an awful lot like 3rd graders. 

As for me? Well I was able to pick up the plotline again over this last weekend. On Saturday night I was able to attend the jazz cafe concert. Embarrassingly, it was the first music concert I was able to attend this year. Then on Sunday afternoon, I treated myself to a performance of the spring play and speech showcase. Folks, I was blown away by the performances of our students. Yet it was more than those singular capstone performances that impressed me. It was also a recognition of the journey these students had been on over the course of this school year. Mrs. Ramsey and Mr. Stover articulated it best when they recognized the fact that these students had been working together in rehearsal since as early as November. Even more enlightening was the commitment that was shown over the course of multiple years when both directors talked about the impact their seniors have made on the program.

As we move through this spring, marching steadily toward summer, there will be ample opportunities for all of us to make sure we don't lose the plot. I encourage all of us to make sure we take full advantage of these moments. It is in the concerts, inductions into National Honor Society, classroom presentations, and athletic events to come, where we have the chance to remember why we are here. 

The Consequence of Responsibility

When I arrived in 2010, this district was in trouble financially. At the end of that first fiscal year, we had an unspent balance of just $90,971. Without context, that may seem to be a pretty meaningless number so let me try and fill in the blanks. The trouble is, when trying to estimate the balance sheets leading up to the close out of the fiscal year, it is part science and part art. I usually give the board a target number with the caveat that we'll be within $100,000 on either side of the target. So then, ending with $90,971 on the right side of the ledger that first year was lucky; and essentially a rounding error. Needless to say, we had to implement some pretty austere budget reductions in order to right the ship. That meant reductions in force, elimination of some programs, and the consolidation of others. I'll always remember those public meetings in the middle school auditorium, and of course a board meeting the following August when we had kindergarten parents stacked like cordwood in the boardroom when we had two sections of kindergarten: 29 and 28 students in each. It was not great, but we had no choice and had to hold the line.

You see, in Iowa it is illegal to overspend the maximum authorized budget. To be clear though, I am not talking about deficit spending. Deficit spending in a fiscal year simply means the district has dipped into their reserves, or unspent authorized balance. Every once in a while deficit spending isn't a problem, so long as the decision maker is aware that each year of deficit spending will result in the deterioration of unspent balance. Exhausting all of your spending authority is a big deal. It can lead to an automatic reduction an equal amount the following year, a state mandated 'work out' plan, and a Phase II fiscal review under the administration of the Iowa Department of Education. But the ultimate penalty is loss of accreditation, which effectively dissolves the school district. Has it happened before? You better believe it, and not all that long ago. In 2018 the Davenport Community School District was placed under state oversight because of financial problems. In fact, they just regained local control in 2022. More recently, the Orient-Macksburg school district will officially dissolve on July 1, 2026. 

I have argued, and will continue to do so until the day I retire that the single most important financial metric in Iowa public schools is the unspent balance ratio. If it goes sideways, it is the only one that can close you down. That, coupled with the challenges we had at the beginning of my tenure have made made me, well....particularly sensitive to this metric. That is why we have been so careful and diligent in our budgeting practice and execution. That is why we file for ever class action that we can in order to preserve and recapture any spending authority that we are authorized to under Iowa law. I am proud to say that we are on track to close fiscal year 2026 with an unspent balance approaching $6.2 million (+/-$100,000). At the same time we have been able to fund and add programs, provide fair compensation to our employees, and ensure that our facilities are well maintained and cared for. We've done so through a disciplined approach and responsible stewardship of our taxpayer resources. Unfortunately it appears some of that hard work is in jeopardy. 

And not because of anything we have done. It is because the lastest property tax proposal from the House will limit the unspent authorized budget carry forward for the next budget year to no more than 35% of the prior year expenditures. Now, for perspective this is what I anticipate the next five years of UAB will look like: 

This is what happens when the formula is changed: 

Granted, this is all based on projections and A LOT can happen in the interim.  But these are our known variables at this time, and mathematically defendable. If this change were implemented, the sum loss of spending authority over the next five years in Hudson Schools could exceed $9.8 million. Now, part of the argument that is being made is that school districts are sitting on too much unspent balance. Perhaps that argument has some merit. If it does the follow up question must be, who should be the arbiter of how much is too much? The fact is that the only way to drive this metric down would be to either not claim authority that is allowed by statute (which, frankly I would view as irresponsible), or to increase expenditures. We can increase expenditures. But that would seems counterproductive, seeing that the whole point is to lower property taxes. To me, it seems wholly appropriate to carry a large reserve fund simply because of all the volatility we are experiencing-from quite literally everywhere! It is an insurance policy meant to combat those years when deficit spending may be necessary, or to deal with a sudden drop in enrollment caused by changes in state law or economic stagnation and recession.

If the idea is property tax reform, I think there may be a disconnect. You see, not all of that unspent balance is backed by cash and can't be. In our case, we are only backfilling about $900,000 of our authority with cash in order to maintain our solvency ratio. We could fund more, but are not, precisely because of property tax sensitivity. Even so, there is already a circuit breaker in place to limit the levy. Our ability to generate revenue is limited to 20% of the total general fund expenditures from two years ago. Now, that has created some other problems that are unique to a school district that has experienced rapid growth over the last two years, but we have been able to manage. The point is, we couldn't fully fund the unspent balance if we wanted to because we have one hand tied behind our backs with the statutory limitations currently in place. Throttling back a districts ability to capture spending authority then, will not impact property taxes-because the statutory governor placed on the cash reserve levy already does that.

What it will do though is further erode a school districts ability to respond to unplanned anomalies, which are becoming more and more common in this era of volatile enrollment swings-also due to recent legislative changes. I don't know. It kind of feels like we are being punished for being responsible. 

Restricting Screen Time in the Elementary

At the beginning of the last school year, the Board of Directors asked to consider a policy that would restrict or ban the use of cell phones in our school district. During that fall term, we gathered community and family input then crafted a policy that was ready for board action right before Christmas break. We found the feedback to be incredibly diverse, with some parents in favor of very strong and strict regulations, where others had views representing the polar opposite.

It was right around that time we learned the governor was planning to introduce legislation on this very topic for the upcoming legislative session. So we tabled action. Ultimately, legislation was passed requiring school districts to adopt policies restricting cell phones during the school year. Our policy was subsequently adopted and went into effect at the start of the current school year. 

To remind you our policy does not outright ban these devices, (with the exception being elementary and middle school) but instead restricts when they can be used. There was quite a bit of debate at the time as to whether or not high school students should be allowed to use devices between classes or at lunch. We erred on the side of allowing them. While we are not currently debating an amendment to the policy, many school districts are. 

School districts aren't the only ones who are currently considering further limits to screen time. In last week's column, we discussed some of the provisions and amendments that are included in HF2676 AKA, the governor's Make America Healthy Again bill. You'll recall my description of this bill as a 'Christmas Tree' bill because of all the amendments that were attached to it. In my staff bulletin for that week, I think I described it as a frankenstein bill. One of the amendments that I didn't get to, simply due to lack of space is included in Division VII of the bill: 'Student Instructional Technology Standards'. 

This section of the bill aims to limit screen time in the elementary school to no more than 60 minutes per day. I actually have some mixed feelings about this proposal. On one hand, it makes a ton of sense, particularly when squared with the research and the work that Jonathan Haidt continues to advance. Truth be told, when we were debating our own policies, it didn't take long to circle back to this idea that it didn't make a whole lot of sense to restrict cell phones if all students needed to do is open up an iPad to scroll through social media. Good point.

'they called it progress'
click the picture to view
the video on YouTube

The challenge to the proposal is the enormous investment that we have made, not only in the hardware: but software. Physical textbooks are quickly becoming a thing of the past. When I first started in this job, whenever we went through a curriculum adoption the books, assessment packages, and accommodations manual were the 'thing' we purchased. The vendor would 'throw in' a copy of the online material at no extra charge. In those days, most schools were still operating stand alone computer labs so the idea of online textbooks was novel. So then, sometime in July, a truck would show up and unload several pallets of the new stuff. Today, the material is primarily online and they will throw in a set of classroom set of physical textbooks at no cost. No doubt the complete opposite of they way curricular material was procured an the onset of my career. 

Granted a lot of this is more geared toward middle school level and beyond. We still have ample material in our elementary that is physical, consumable textbooks. But our intervention system is not. It may be a difficult needle to thread, but is it worth threading? Probably so. One of the parts of this proposal I can definitely get behind: a complete prohibition of the device at recess!

Finally, as I was considering the content of today's column I stumbled across the video at the left in my LinkedIn feed. It really illustrates how ubiquitous technology has become in the lives of our young people and asks us to consider the price we are paying for progress. Simply click the picture and it should take you to the video. It's both a bit funny, and kind of sad at the same time. 

Time as a Resource

About a month ago I published a piece titled 'Newton's Law of Motion'. In that article, my focal point was property tax reform. We discussed the idea that if we reduce one side of the budget ledger, we have to reduce the opposite side of the ledger an equal amount or risk a spending deficit. Sounds simple in theory. In fact, on the revenue side it probably is. Reduce income by $200,000? Ok, done (not really, but hang with me a minute). The challenge comes when you have to balance that reduction out on the expenditure side of the ledger. Turning theory to practice becomes a much steeper hill to climb. Human nature would suggest everyone is in favor or reducing the expenditure side of the ledger: until it impacts a program or initiative that is near and dear to their own hearts. Exhibit 'A': Just turn on the local news tonight and watch the story about any business, school, local government that is cutting costs. 

In any event, I digress. Today isn't about budget cuts or property tax reform. It's about time. In my annual convocation address I always make the point that we only have 178 days of student instruction. We need to make them count. Over the course of the school year that clock continues to run, as do my narration of reminders, for example: The 100th day of school (on the day this is being written it is actually the 132nd day)! Or, in my message right after we return from spring break: We are now in the final stretch of the school year, starting our second week of the final quarter of the school year. I do this not to wish away the days with a longing for the warm relaxation of summer break, but to create a sense of urgency. Our principals are focused on teacher pacing. Are they hitting all the benchmarks? Will they finish their curriculum in time? Teachers are focused on just one more chance to move the needle on student achievement for their students.

One could probably argue that time is our most valuable commodity or resource; surpassing even financial effort. After all, we can replenish our revenue. We can find ways to bolster income streams. The one thing we cannot do is turn back time. Once today is gone, it's gone forever. We'll never get it back so it is incumbent on us to use our days and our time wisely. 

Have you ever heard the quote, 'show me your budget and I'll tell you what you value?' I think that is a fair statement. I'll change it a bit though: 'show me your schedule and I'll tell you what you value'. In case you are curious, our daily schedule is 405 minutes of complex collaboration across 3 attendance centers. It is balanced in such a way that changing one component of the schedule at the high school can have a ripple effect across the district, which could ultimately impact when kindergarten has music class. Now, if you were to look at that kindergarten schedule, or any elementary classroom schedule for that matter it would become pretty evident what is valued most in our daily allotment of 405 minutes. Literacy instruction. I'm sure you've heard me say this before. The most important thing that happens in elementary school is that we teach kids how to read. Full stop. Without the ability to read, you cannot function in society. Our schedule reflects that value. The investment we have made in teacher training reflects that value. 

We obviously can't forget about other subjects and content areas. Those too are both important, and required. Math is a close second. Now, it probably wouldn't be fair to rank the remainder of the content because at this point bias begins to enter the picture. Personally, I might rank music higher for example than some other content. That's not really the point. The point is that we have to fit all of those other content areas into our 405 daily minutes. Not just because they are required by the Chapter 12 accreditation standards, but also to ensure that we are turning out well rounded citizen problem solvers. 

There is constant stress on the schedule not just during the annual exercise of negotiation among building principals for time, but on vendors who would like to sell or add just one more program to our already packed daily regimen. They have just the trick, strategy, or program to solve whatever problem ails us. All we need is just a bit of time in the schedule. Or, (and I'm finally getting to the point here today) the legislature adds one more requirement to the schedule. We have to ask, at what cost? And I'm not necessarily talking about the financial implication (of which there almost always undoubtedly is).

So we finally arrive at the point of today's missive. HF2676, aptly named the governor's MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) bill. It has had more amendments added to it that ornaments on a Christmas tree. Now, the bill has some good stuff in it. Even the amendments that aren't so great come from a position of genuine desire to improve the health of our youth. The trouble is Newton's Law of Motion. Let me explain. Perhaps the most problematic of amendments is a new physical education requirement. Under this proposal, students in grades 1-8 would be required to take 30 minutes of PE each day and complete the presidential fitness test. In addition, students in grades K-8 would be required to have 120 minutes of physical activity each week that is not PE (in other words, recess). At the high school, students in grades 9-12 would be required to participate in an extra or co-curricular activity as a condition of graduation. For starters, it would undoubtedly require additional staff. Assuming we have the financial capacity to staff the program might be the easy part.

We have 405 minutes a day. Those minutes are finite. If we add anything to the schedule, anything; it will mean that we have to take those minutes away from somewhere else.

Do You Own the School?

It's hard for our youngest students to conceptualize what it is exactly that I do. They understand that teachers are in charge of the classroom and that the principals are the 'boss', but when they learn that I am the principal's boss; well that is typically beyond the grasp of their little minds. A few years back, one of the kindergarten students was convinced that my job title was 'Intendent' and that I was just really good (you get it, right?). Last week I was stopped in the hallway and asked if I owned the school. No, I said. But your mom and dad do. You want to talk about a concept that is well beyond their comprehension!

It's true though. All of us who pay property taxes have an ownership stake in this school district. We are all investors in this great enterprise. What then, should be our expected ROI? In his 'Notes on the State of Virginia' written in 1781, Thomas Jefferson argued that public education was essential for preserving a free, stable republic by preventing tyranny and ensuring informed citizens. He also proposed that a system of taxes should pay for the education of the public, arguing this is far cheaper than paying the costs of a corrupt government. 

So what, and how does that apply to 2026? I kind of think about it like this. Preservation of the republic? Sure, if we want to keep this system running for the next 250 years, we would be wise to make certain our young citizens are well versed in what it is we aspire to in our continuing quest for the more perfect union. But as a more practical matter, we need youth ready to take the reins from us when we hang up the saddle. To keep things running smoothly while we enjoy our golden years. Have the tools and skills necessary to solve the problems we haven't gotten to yet. In 1848, Horace Mann penned his essay on public education, 'The Great Equalizer of the Conditions of Men'. In it, he suggested that our great educational enterprise is the supplier of artists, presidents, nurses, doctors, and leaders of our armies. 

Today then, I want to spend some time talking with you about that investment for the fiscal year that will begin on July 1, 2026; just mere days from the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence! That investment of course being the property tax levy for the new year. As I shared with you a year ago, the property tax statement that is going to be landing in your mailboxes over the next few days isn't going to give you a whole lot of useful information. It is confusing and isn't at all user friendly. For more information on how to interpret that statement, please refer to my post 'Understanding Your Property Tax Statement'. Or, better yet you can go to our website and calculate your property taxes using this calculator that I think is pretty user friendly. The table to the right depicts the property tax rate for fiscal year 2026 and the proposed property tax rate for fiscal year 2027. The proposed rate for fiscal year 2027 is $17.20512. By clicking on that icon, it will take you to the calculator where you can input your property valuations in the shaded cells. There are directions included to help you find your valuations, but if you need any help, please don't hesitate to reach out! Now, be careful! If you change any of the other cells it will mess up the formula. If that happens, I would recommend simply going back to the original link and downloading a new calculator. The middle section of the calculator assumes your property value remained the same from one fiscal year to another. I can promise, your property value did not stay the same. This sample is merely meant to illustrate the impact of the rollback percentage, which is the current way property tax relief is delivered in state code. Keep in mind the legislature continues to contemplate property tax reform so I anticipate these rates will change depending on the outcome of the legislative session.

Now the fair question to ask is why are property taxes increasing and comparatively speaking, why does it seem like Hudson is higher when compared against other taxing authorities? The answer is somewhat complex, so I'll to break it into three main points.

The first thing to understand is that geographically (and comparatively) speaking, the Hudson Community School District is small. At roughly 57 square miles, our district is one of the smallest in the state. Furthermore, outside of what is considered 'in town' we are pretty sparsely populated. Moreover, there are very few commercial businesses inside the district to increase the overall property valuation. The more commercial enterprises in a taxing authority, the higher the valuation. This means the tax burden is spread out. Because of our lack of commercial real estate, the tax burden is carried primarily by residential property owners: that's you and me. In Iowa school finance, this is what is known as a 'property poor' school district. Not to be confused with socio-economic status, this merely refers to overall gross property value and the lack of industry to share the tax burden.

Which leads to the second point. All along what we refer to as the northern tier (for the sake of this discussion, I'm going to further isolate this tract of property to that between highway 20 and Ridgeway Avenue). All of this property is in what is known as a TIF (tax increment finance) district. TIF is an economic development tool used to encourage commercial development (yes, this is in the Hudson Community School District). The incentive works a bit like this: you build a business and we'll give you property tax rebates for twenty years. Think about this: the total value of all the property in our district is $311,993,952. I know, it's a lot. But here's the rub. Just $239,432,018 is used to calculate property taxes. So, $72,561,934 or $23% of our property value is in TIF districts. Among the highest in the state. What does that mean for you and me? It means your property tax rate would be $1.48 lower than what it currently is. 

The last piece that I want to talk about is funding our special education programs. Funding for special education programs is very different from general education programming and is largely governed by the federal IDEA. Each student has an individualized plan that is developed by a team that includes teachers, administrators, and parents. Essentially, if the team decides a particular service is warranted, we are required by federal law to make those accommodations. This may include a specialized school, transportation, nursing services, paraprofessional services, and even some equipment. Spoiler alert: it is very common in Iowa for school districts to operate special education programs with deficit spending. Hudson is no different. Now, depending on the level of services needed, each of these students will have extra 'weighting' applied to them. A regular education student generates 1.0 funding: $8,283. Depending on the level of services needed, some students may generate up to 3.74: $30,978. That's a lot, right? Well everything that I mentioned above can come with a price tag upwards of $90,000. Now, we have asked the state to change these weightings for decades to no avail. Because of that lack of movement, the overage (or deficit) is paid by you and me.

Mann closes his 1848 essay like this, "Education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of men, the balance wheel of social machinery...For the creation of wealth, then-for the existence of a wealthy people and a wealthy nation, intelligence is the grand condition". That, is hopefully our return on investment. 

Separating the Wheat from the Chaff

This time of year I sometimes have to remind my younger colleagues to take a breath and not get too worked up about what is going on in Des Moines. As one of the more 'seasoned' in the group, I know too well that we can run ourselves ragged trying to keep up with all of the bills that are filed during the early part of the legislative session, some of which are downright ludicrous. Inevitably, the neighbor of a legislator doesn't like how School District 'X' handles a particular situation in their school district, so the obvious solution is a legislative fix. More often than not, the proposed solution is quite the doozy and the legislator who filed the bill probably agrees. They are just being responsive to a constituent and realize that bill won't see the light of day. Unfortunately these bills oftentimes become the source of a great deal of stress and ill advised emails to said legislator. Admittedly, as a young superintendent I often fell for the trap until bequeathed the gift of experience. Until we reach the first funnel deadline it is a little bit like the wild west in the halls of the capitol. The statistic I heard recently was that somewhere in the vicinity of 1,500 bills will be filed in advance of the first funnel. According to the latest bill tracker on the Iowa Department of Education website, there are more than 75 bills with a direct impact on education. But alas, only about 10% will ultimately reach the finish line. As of last Friday, February 18th we have met that first milestone.

The funnel is meant to begin separating the wheat from the chaff. In order for a bill to stay alive for consideration, it must clear a committee in the Chamber of origin. The process goes a little bit like this. A bill is introduced, and then assigned to a subcommittee of three legislators. The majority of those legislators (two) have to agree to forward it to the full committee. The full committee votes, and if the majority agrees it clears the funnel and remains 'alive' for consideration. In all honesty, this is a pretty low bar. But, it is also a signal to start paying a little more attention. For me, up to this point I have been a pretty casual observer of the legislative process. I'll pay attention from the distance. If I think feedback will be helpful for legislators to understand the impact of a particular bill, I'm happy to oblige. However, I'm not commenting on every 'tin foil hat' idea that is proposed. What I have learned over the course of my tenure is that my opinion isn't really relevant or germaine to the debate. Facts on the other hand, well they can have an impact, particularly if they come from the genuine position of wanting to help. So I don't focus on the silliness, choosing to ignore that completely. We have folks in Des Moines representing us whose primary mission is to seek out and kill these bills. (That's a pro tip for the youngsters who may be following this blog.)

Granted, whatever has met that first low hurdle still has quite a way to go before it gets to the governor's desk. It is incredibly hard for a bill to become a law! Nevertheless, it is a signal to become a bit more attuned to what is transpiring in Des Moines. 

As we have previously discussed, property tax reform continues to be an area of priority this session and I am continuing to monitor those bills. But now that we are through the first funnel, I'd like to spend a bit of time today discussing a few bills that stick out to me and to consider some emerging themes. 

For starters, there are a number of bills with overlapping ideas; which suggests this is a priority area in the legislature this session. Among them are very prescriptive proposals for content that would become required in schools. Now, I understand the desire to add graduation requirements for such things as computer science or adding an additional unit of civics. I can also recognize the noble intent of adding additional physical activity requirements for recess at the elementary. But. Yes there is always a 'but'. Notwithstanding the fact that all of these proposals are unfunded mandates (despite the final paragraph of the bill proclaiming they are not), the one variable that is immovable no matter what: is time. Our school day is 405 minutes long. Each of those minutes has a purpose, whether designated as literacy time, physics class, lunch, recess, or even passing time between classes. Fitting something else into our day is more than an unfunded mandate. It means something else will need to go. Unfortunately, proposals never say, "Stop doing 'X' so you can start doing 'Y'".

One bill that I am particularly interested in learning more about is HF2451. This bill aims to limit the amount of 'school digital instruction limits' that elementary students (those as defined in grades K-5) are permitted. The proposals would mandate students could use these type of devices for no more than 60 minutes per day. Rumors had circulated prior to the start of the legislative session this would be a topic and the next logical step after the promulgation of state law one year ago restricting student cell phone access during instructional time. 

Even though we have reached the first funnel deadline and 'winnowed the field' so to speak, there is still a long way to go before any of these proposals end up state law. We've reached one milestone with many more to go. I'll continue to monitor their progress and keep you apprised. In the meantime, let's not get too worked up about anything yet!

Strategic Hiring-In Search of the Unicorn

In Jim Collins' book, 'Good to Great' he talks about this concept of getting the wrong people off the bus and the right people on the bus. Then, once we have the right talent on board, we have to ensure they are in the right positions where they can provide the most value. That seems like a great place to start our conversation today because, you see not all teachers are interchangeable insofar as to what seat they sit on the bus. Some teaches have specialized credentials, meaning they are only licensed to teach within a narrow content area. Others may be limited to specific grade bands. 

For the most part, those who teach elementary school are considered generalists. This means someone who is an elementary teacher can be employed as a kindergarten teacher or a sixth grade teacher and anything in between. Granted, someone who has experience or desire to teach sixth grade isn't likely to aspire to kindergarten (or vice versa), but the credential remains the same. This type of teacher provides a great deal of flexibility, particularly when dealing with bubble classes. For example, one year you may need three sections of one grade level, and the next year you may need four. In these instances, a teacher can float up or down without any license restrictions. At this level (and at the secondary level for that matter), they are unable to teach art, music, physical education, or reading as a stand-a-lone course, because those also take a very specific license. 

Because of this, hiring at the elementary level typically attracts a larger pool. There is much more elasticity when it comes to placement, and we have greater odds to ensure that we have the 'right people in the right seats'. Now, I certainly don't want to diminish the thoughtful and deliberate work that Mrs. Betts and her team have put into hiring over the last handful of years, but it has been relatively straightforward. Sure, it takes a lot of time, consensus building, and just plain hard work! But things get a bit more complicated once the hiring shifts to seventh grade. 

That's because we are no longer hiring generalists. Now, we are hiring content specialists. You see, a seventh grade teacher can't just teach eighth grade writ large. Once we get to the secondary level, teachers are credentialed by content area. In other words, a 7th grade teacher is licensed in a content area; let's say math. This means they are licensed to teach any math class from grades seven through twelve. Furthermore, when considering science and social studies it becomes a bit more fragmented. Just because a teacher is licensed to teach biology does not mean they can also teach physics-unless they have an additional endorsement. 

This is where hiring practices become a bit more strategic. When looking for content area specialists, we cast as wide of a net as possible. Science teachers who are endorsed in 'all sciences'. Social studies with the same 'all social sciences' endorsement. Even when hiring some of the 'upper elementary' teachers we look for those with a broad range of endorsements in math, science, social studies, and the all important reading. This is because, not only can they teach in the general education setting, if they have a specific content endorsement, we can fill their day teaching that content. The trouble of course is these endorsements must be earned, they aren't just giving them away. And endorsements cost money, money that young people in search of a Bachelor's Degree don't always have. It makes the candidate pool smaller, and when those with multiple endorsements are discovered we call that 'finding the unicorn'-while not like the mythical creature, it is very rare-and incredibly valuable. Once we find that rare unicorn, the decision may be whether or not it makes sense to hire that person early knowing that, while we don't necessarily need someone with those endorsements right now, two or three years down the road we will. For reference we talked about the concept of Looking Around the Corner a few weeks back when it comes to financial decisions for the district, which is undoubtedly used to shape our long term strategy. It helps us to inform our ability to make those long term strategy decisions. 

Complicating the matter a bit further is the organizational structure of the instructional schedule and how our building(s) are utilized. 

Instructionally, our day is organized into eight periods. Teachers at the secondary level (7-12) typically have a class load that fills of seven of those eight periods with instruction, with the eighth period designated as a 'prep' period. This period is for exactly what it states: to prepare for instruction. It may include planning lessons, responding to email, collaborating with colleagues, or meeting with the principal. The challenge becomes obvious once our first four section grade level enters the seventh grade. At that point, we will need four sections of seventh grade and three sections of eighth grade. With our current staffing model, we should be able to make that work. It will require us to 'shave off' a few study hall options but staffing it should work. The follow on year: 2030-2031 is when we start to have some issues. Minor issues, but issues nonetheless. This is when the ability to staff our 'exploratory schedule' and some electives at the high school begin to be impacted. We will begin to notice that we are short one section in one content area. Each succeeding year out to the 2034-2035 school year it compounds. The trouble being that no one is looking for a job teaching one section of math. Or one section of social studies. And on and on. The solution? The elusive unicorn. 

If the primary issue is staffing the program, then the secondary issue is building utilization. Indeed this puzzle has two parts. While unlocking the paradox of the unicorn, we also need to determine where these teachers (and students) are going to live. This take a great deal of thought to map out a coherent strategy. Our building utilization models need to run out to 2034-2035. The class of 2035 is currently in third grade. This would represent a scenario where the district could potentially be considered a four section district in grades K-12. Will they all fit? Our current analysis suggest...maybe. Truthfully we need to take our time to arrive at the answer. Luckily we have ample runway with which to make this decision!

As our deliberations evolve insofar as building utilization is concerned we'll work on the primary problem: chasing the unicorn. 

Staffing for the Future

Compared to many of our colleagues around the state, Hudson is in somewhat of a unique situation. Where many of our neighbors are experiencing drops in enrollment, that does not appear to be the case here. Granted, while our residential or certified enrollment count is down a smidge, the overall headcount is up just enough to overcome the residential decrease. Admittedly, we had anticipated a larger increase in our enrollment this year. Even so, the trend continues to point in an upward direction and our projections suggest increases for the 2026-2027 school year. 

Enrollment is mostly growing from the 'bottom up', starting with the kindergarten class in the 2022-2023 school year when we added a fourth section to that grade level. Tactically, each succeeding year we have simply added a section as that grade level has matriculated, while the grade levels below them have continued to be sustained and staffed with four sections. We are now preparing for that grade level to move to the fourth grade next year, and again planning to add the accompanying section. A lot of what we have done to this point have been tactical decisions, in other words short term specific actions that provide the most flexibility.

At the same time, we are considering long term strategic planning. Think about this. Adding a section a year based on enrollment numbers at a particular grade level is a pretty straightforward decision. If you have 70+ students in an elementary grade level, it can either be staffed with three sections in low to mid twenties, or four sections of 17/18. Tactically, we have elected to go with 4 sections with the understanding that if the numbers are 'on the bubble' and the budget doesn't support those sections, we can simply forego making that hiring decision. If that happens over the course of a couple of years, perhaps it may become necessary to scale the faculty back by a position. Tactical. The trouble with tactical decision making is that unforeseen issues can kind of sneak up on you. For example, were you aware that our enrollment has increased over 120 students since 2021? That's an almost 14% increase! And, as I mentioned that trend appears to continue rising. Sure, it may slow but up is still up. 

That's why we have been engaged in strategic planning for well over a year now. Thinking about staffing needs long term and what positions, both for direct instruction and support may be needed down the road. Or, what structures need to be in place now to support this growth in enrollment? When we hire teachers for our classrooms, there needs to be a solid foundational system that supports them now, and is nimble and flexible enough to support future growth. Case in point: we hired a middle school principal this year. It was evident the number of students and teachers being served by current building administrators was not manageable. Furthermore, as staff continue to be added and those students matriculate to middle school they need a champion in their corner.

But that is not the only strategic decision that we will make, or even need to contemplate in the coming months and years. You see, as our enrollment growth continues it will require much more than a section at a grade level. Those are needs that you can see with your own eyes. It is also about the number of staff we have in the music department. The special education program. Art department. Counseling. Whenever I am blessed with the opportunity to visit with employees one on one, I ask the question: what do you need? Their answer in one form or another is usually: help. 

Therein lies the challenge. Hiring an additional teacher can be accomplished without too much pain fiscally. Particularly when you have 80 students and are trying to determine whether or not you want class sizes of 20 or 27. This task becomes much more complicated when the math isn't quite so quantifiable. Compound it further when you must determine whether or not space limitations are part of the calculus (they are in our case).

Then, there is the reality of funding for Iowa Schools. Now, that really isn't the point of today's column, but when the rate in which per pupil funding grows in Iowa doesn't even keep up with the cost of inflation it only exacerbates the underlying issues. Even with static enrollment, costs are going to continue to rise. If employees aren't going to see wage increases that are competitive they will leave. A hard to fill position like some of the supporting roles mentioned above will practically guarantee turnover at a rate that makes the ability to sustain and grow some of these programs all but impossible. 

With that, we'll stop for today. Next week we'll dive a bit deeper into the strategy. Answers may be elusive, but the first step is identifying the problem and the barriers while considering the strategic decisions that are being contemplated. 

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. 

Looking Around the Corner

It's that time of year. The legislature is in session and budget season is upon us. I'll be spending time in this space over the coming months explaining the various proposals that are being discussed in Des Moines and how they may impact Hudson Schools. To this point, we are relatively early in the session and as such there really are no surprises. Supplemental state aid is not yet set, but the governor recommended a 2% increase, which is what I have presumed in my forecast models. Property tax reform is a key priority this year, and while the proposals that have been filed so far are concerning, there will be ample time to unpack those as we get into the session. To begin, I want to spend a bit of time with you today discussing the budget and providing a bit of context into the conversations that are happening with some of our neighbors around the state as they consider what can best be described as austere budget cuts.  

In September, I shared with you our financial report on the current status of district finances with a promise to return to this topic with a forecast toward the end of October. That forecast was completed, but some of the assumptions needed additional refining. It wasn't until we had our property valuations complete and a sense of SSA recommendations before I had a moderate to high degree of confidence in the accuracy of these models. A disclaimer: when forecasting 5 years into the future it is very difficult to have a high degree of confidence in anything. I prefer a closer view; about 18 months. Even so, this is a great exercise to at least provide a roadmap. We'll get to that in a moment, but first...

If you have been following the local news, they have been running a series of stories regarding a roughly $11 million hole that needs to be filled in Cedar Rapids. The District explains the primary reason is due to the introduction of vouchers that came fully online this school year. As such, they have seen a precipitous drop in student enrollment. The governor, when interviewed, pointed to the use of covid money (AKA one time money) being used for ongoing or operating expenses. Truth be told, they are both right-with the edge probably going to the decrease in enrollment. 

First, the enrollment drop. In the simplest of terms, revenue for a school district is generated by the number of students served multiplied by the cost per pupil. If you have fewer students each succeeding year, less revenue will be generated. It is incumbent on schools then, to adjust expenditures accordingly. Granted, this is much easier said than done because the byproduct is most certainly going to be larger class sizes (and in the case of Cedar Rapids building closures). From a purely analytical and mathematic(s) standpoint it is pretty easy. From an emotional standpoint, it is much more difficult. 

The idea of covid money being one time money is also valid. Consider this scenario. You are gifted $500 and all you have is $500. You use that 'one time' money to finance a new car. The first month, the payment is $100, leaving you with $400. After 5 months, that money is gone and you no longer have a way to make the car payment. What do you do? Well, for starters you probably shouldn't have bought the car. Some school districts used this same principle with their covid allocations. They hired teachers and then when the money ran out, they retained them on staff. You can see the issue, right?

This is why it is so important to have the ability to 'look around the corner' and see what is on the horizon. If one time money is used for operational expenditures, what is the plan for when that funding stream dries up? How do we account for fluctuations in enrollment? Changes to state funding? If we change variable 'X', then what? How are property taxes impacted? Our ability to forecast is critical, not only to keep us out of budget trouble, but to help make long term plans for the district. These models are updated on a regular basis as new information is gathered. So, what does our forecast tell us? Well, based on the current assumptions, mostly sunny with a few clouds here and there. 

Here is what one model assumes. In this scenario, for FY27, general fund expenditures would grow by 5.33% from $12.092 million to $12.737 million, and then flatten to a growth rate of 4% for the run of the model. (If these expenditure forecasts seem high, keep in mind with projected enrollment growth there is also a need for additional staff to serve those students.) It also suggests a tax rate increase over the next 3 years in effort to keep the solvency ratio in the 15%-20% range. It also illustrates a property tax rate [relief] that would be realized if we were able to capture the valuation from our TIF district. This is quite a striking number! It also shows that our unspent balance remains healthy (which I continue to preach is the most important metric in Iowa School Finance), and it portrays a very healthy ending fund balance, increasing every year through the run of the model, with a decrease of $172,117 in FY31. 

The chart above, as stated in the title shows results in the simplest of terms. The blue bars along the 'X' axis illustrate the revenue generated to fund the program whereas the line that follows along the 'Y' axis is an illustration of the spending trajectory. Actual spending is shown through FY25, and then it forecasts four different scenarios ranging from a 3% growth pattern to a 6% growth pattern. If the line is touching the bar, the district has matched or underspent when compared to the resources. On the other hand, if there is a gap between the line and the bar, it suggests a deficit spending scenario. In this model, projections fall somewhere between the purple and green lines. 

In the final analysis, these projections should be consumed for what they are worth: they are assumptions. They answer the 'If, then', question. Forecasting what the budget is going to look like in FY31 is merely an academic exercise at this point. What I really try to hang my hat on at the end of the day is what is the end of this fiscal year going to look like, and what is the end of the next fiscal year going to look like.

At this point, these aren't even budget recommendations. That will come a bit later on in our budget season (and for FY27 only). Ultimately the school board will determine which variables make the most sense for our school district and what the actual 'spend' will look like. Not only that, but we have a lot of legislative session to get through yet, and property tax reform will be addressed this session. 

As our title today indiates, we are looking around the corner with an exercise like this. Granted, I'm only really focused the base year and out year. This type of financial tool at least gives us a jumping off point and ample runway if adjustments are needed in the future (and with every variable that changes in the model, adjustments are needed). A look like this provides us the gift of time and planning. 

However, time isn't on our side for all things when 'looking around the corner'. Currently, we are in the process of triangulating our enrollment projections with building utilization. For that exercise, we are looking all the way to 2034-2035 school year. By that school year, if enrollment continues to track as currently projected, we would have 4 sections per grade level K-12. Can we fit them all? Well, that is the question we are currently trying to answer. That one, well we don't have as much time. Stay tuned, we'll tackle that topic in an upcoming article!