Capitol Comments
EDUCATION REFORM
We all agree that our Education system in Iowa can be improved. We differ on how we best accomplish this. There are many areas where we can work together with Republicans and the Governor to reach compromise and good Legislation. And, any education reform plan must be thoughtful, researched, and designed to improve learning for all students. The Governor’s plan and the new scaled-back version from House Republicans both fall well short of these goals. The Democrats in the House Education Committee fought past midnight Wednesday evening trying to improve the bill by amending it but all our efforts were rejected on party-line votes.
HF 215 scaled back the Governor’s plan, dramatically lowering beginning teacher salaries from $35,000 to $32,000 and making reform efforts optional. That’s because the Governor’s plan shortchanged 62% of schools (215 districts) by not providing enough money to pay for reforms. The Governor’s own Teacher Leadership and Compensation Task Force, which developed the recommendations, made clear this piece of the plan should only be implemented IF the Legislature provided adequate resources to enact the plan.
The bill does not take into consideration the changing nature of our students today with the rising number of children in poverty. It also does not address the development of basic education requirements known as the “Iowa Core”, underachieving students, English language learners, or early childhood education.
Rural school districts don’t have enough staff to take the most experienced teachers out of the classroom. If the state requires an experienced teacher to spend 25-50% of his/her time out of the classroom without a qualified replacement, it has little chance of improving student achievement.
HF 215 spends too much money on growing government in Des Moines. In just the first year (FY 14), $10 million of the $14 million dollars goes directly to the Department of Education with 19 new employees instead of the classroom. These new DOE employees will have an average starting salary of $72,000 while beginning teacher salaries will be $32,000. To improve student achievement, money should be going directly to our schools.
If this legislation is our best effort at Education Reform we truly “missed the bus”.
FUNDING IOWA SCHOOLS – ALLOWABLE GROWTH
We can’t ignore the fiscal challenges schools already face with rising health care, transportation, technology, and energy costs. We’ve heard loud and clear from superintendents, teachers, and parents that we need to set funding for schools (allowable growth) for the upcoming school year now. Any education reform initiative is NOT a substitute for allowable growth. We can’t expect our schools to function without a budget.
MENTAL HEALTH TRANSITION FUNDS
The House approved $11.6 million in mental health transition funds to continue critical mental services in some counties. However, the bill falls well short of the $20 million promised last year – and needed — to continue services statewide.
One of my colleagues in the Iowa House, Representative Lisa Heddens of Story County, shared the following information about the bill, and the debate, with her constituents in her newsletter. I thought I’d share her remarks with all of you.
“When I first ran for office, one of my priorities was to increase access, identify gaps in services and make the investment to adequately fund our Mental Health and Disability delivery system. As the parent of a child with an intellectual disability, providing advocacy and creating policy that truly provides for the needs of our most vulnerable is both a personal and a moral issue for me.
Each year we address a component or two of needed reform, but we never seem to undertake the broader task of eliminating inequities and reforming the system. Two years ago, the wheels were put in motion to redesign our entire adult MH/DD system. Legislation now mandates we move from a county system to a regional system. The state relieved counties of Medicaid responsibilities. Core services were identified, and we began funding services based on residency rather than legal settlement. We determined that in order to move smoothly to this new regional system, transitional funding was necessary to maintain services. Any new system is only as good as the commitment to making it work, with funding as a major criteria for it success.
During the interim, the Governor appointed Mental Health and Disability Services Commission supported $20 million to fund the transition to the new regional system, as did the legislative interim committee. The goal was to maintain services – or to restore services that had been cut – to people with MH/DD. Thirty-two counties stated they needed transition funds to maintain services. Without these funds, these counties would need to cut or eliminate programs altogether.
The House majority introduced HF 160 – the Mental Health and Disability Services transition fund bill which was debated on the House floor Wednesday evening. The bill called for $11.6million in funding, which would provide funding to 26 of the 32 counties that applied to funding assistance. The six counties that were denied funding will make significant cuts and eliminate programs under this proposal. The other twenty-six counties, like Story County, will receive some funding, but not enough to ward off any service reductions or potentially implementing a waiting list. The irony is that the bill specifically stated funds were to maintain or restore services, yet the majority of counties will still need to make cuts under this proposal. The bill also utilized federal monies, which counties may not use to leverage for additional federal money. Moreover, these funds cannot be used to supplant state funds. Letters from Director Palmer with the Dept. of Human Services and Director Roeder with the Department of Management stated concerns about utilizing the federal funds in this manner and spoke to the liability it may pose to counties. These two letters should cause some concern. Additional language states that if counties utilize the federal funds, they may be subject to a federal audit for which they would be forced to pay. Talk about setting a county up for some challenges! Counties which receive funds should take extra precautions to ensure they use accounting practices that prove federal funds do not supplant state funding, and that they have not been used to leverage additional federal funds.
During debate, I offered an amendment that would have provided $20 million dollars in assistance to the 32 counties that applied for funding. This level of funding would allow counties to maintain services to individuals in need. Additionally, I proposed utilizing general funds vs. federal funds to eliminate the concerns stated by Director Palmer, Director Roeder, and concerned counties.
Unfortunately, my amendment failed on a party-line vote. Due to inadequate funding to counties that would stave off any reduction or elimination of services, I voted “No” on final passage of the bill. It is my hope the Senate will take a second look at this bill and the people it has left behind.” -Lisa
I voted for Lisa’s amendment to provide the needed $20 million dollars. And, like her, voted “No” on final passage of the bill because the continued underfunding will result in more cuts to individuals needing critical services in MH/DD across the state.
-Representative Art Staed
Read More from the Iowa House
To read the rest of the Statehouse News go to: http://iowahouse.org/StatehouseNews/2-15-13.html