Last week on the Senate floor we passed a bill that makes education forecast adjustments. There are no new provisions, it’s just correcting funding due to incorrect fiscal notes from last year. It does reflect a $241 million increase in spending, though, which was already accounted for in the state’s most recent budget forecast. Bills like this are fairly typical – sometimes fiscal notes are off, it happens. However, $241 million is a shockingly expensive correction that is evidence of a much larger issue. It means Democrats failed to plan for how costly many of their mandates would be for local schools. Though I agree with the need for the bill, so we can avoid our schools facing even worse funding shortfalls, there was another way we could have provided additional relief.

I offered one of my bills as an amendment, which would give school districts more options with how to utilize state funding and deal with all of last year’s mandates. Last year Democrats pushed a large education budget that was unfortunately tied to a number of costly mandates. This led to our schools being financially worse off than they were prior to these new mandates. We knew that these would be burdensome and would frankly create significant problems for schools across the state. That is exactly why I offered my bill as an amendment, so we could ensure schools maintain their funding, alongside flexibility needed to implement these new mandates. 

The language I brought forward allows school boards to transfer the new funding from one use to another by passing a resolution indicating the amount and purpose of the funds they want to transfer. These relief measures would be in place for the next three years, and would give local schools an onramp for adapting to some of these new mandates. It also allows schools the ability to extend the timeline for implementation of new mandates. By requiring schoolboards to pass a resolution, we’re ensuring that the process is completely transparent, while also giving them a critical say in their local districts. This would not reduce any of their funding, it would simply allow school boards to decide what the money is used for. School boards understand their districts far better than the state does – they know their abilities and limitations, and they know their needs best.

Many of the dollars given to schools last year were tied to new and burdensome mandates. We’ve been hearing from districts across the state – they are really struggling to balance their budgets under the cost of these mandates. The language I provided does not repeal any of the mandates, and it does not reduce funding, it simply gives our schools time. Many districts are happy with the funding, they are just not able to implement the new mandates within the timeframe they were given.

Unfortunately, Senate Democrats did not accept my amendment. This is incredibly disappointing because it would have given schools the help they’ve been asking for. Schools are under-funded and over-burdened, and they are looking to the legislature for a solution. Though I’m glad this funding adjustment passed, we have to question why such a large adjustment was needed in the first place, and we must examine how to provide meaningful, long-term relief to schools as they adjust to new mandates. This is a conversation we must have sooner rather than later, so our schools have the support and guidance needed to succeed.