Supporting Educators: School Funding and PensionsFirst, I want to thank you for your commitment to students and our communities. Our public schools are so important and the connections you make as teachers are invaluable. I’m still connected to some high school teachers and coaches and frequently ask their advice as I consider education ideas. I need your help as well. I hope you can take a few minutes to read this email in its entirety so I can ensure your thoughts, opinions, and voices are heard at the Capitol. Education ChallengesOur school districts are struggling with budget shortfalls, staff cuts, and increased class sizes. These challenges are driven largely by expensive new mandates, legislators confusing the purpose of education and its provision, and the increasingly difficult political environment we face. Making matters worse, the Governor's proposed 2025 budget includes more than $170 million in cuts to education funding. His proposal reduces special education aid, classroom resources, student transportation, and teachers’ pay (Q-Comp). Yet, in the same budget, he increases funding for hiring more state employees at the Department of Education. This proposal doesn't make sense to me, and I strongly disagree with it. I’d like to hear your feedback on several proposals we are working on in the Suburban Solutions Caucus to support teachers, students, and schools. Our priorities are smaller class sizes, direct flexible funding, pension improvements, and a more localized approach to education, rather than a one-size-fits-all model. Funding Proposals- Income Threshold for School Lunches: Place a $150,000 income threshold for taxpayer funded school lunches. I know this may be a touchy subject for some, but it would allow us to reappropriate approximately $85 million per year for pension improvements, classroom resources and/or teacher pay. Any family that makes less than $150,000 would still have both breakfast and lunches paid for. We think this is a reasonable and balanced solution to address food insecurity at schools and re-invest the resources in teachers and classrooms. What are your thoughts on this proposal? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
- Increase Special Education Funding (HF57): Another proposal we are exploring is increasing funding for special education to better support our dedicated educators and most vulnerable students. We believe this would begin to address some of the funding gaps in special education. Do you support this increase? Why or why not?
Pension ProposalsWe know how important it is to recruit and retain educators. Last session we had a large surplus and I worked hard to make structural changes to teacher pensions. I understand many teachers want a Rule of 90, and I’m happy to support those efforts, but this proposal has a substantial cost. The state’s looming deficit makes this more difficult, but that reality won’t stop me from working on more options and phased solutions that support teachers and improve retirements. - Option #1: 62/30 Career Rule: This proposal provides discount-free retirement for teachers aged 62 with 30 years of service. My proposal last year started with state funding and when that was unsuccessful, we tried to get it passed with an increase in member contributions. That was unsuccessful as well. We will fight to reappropriate state funds for this pension reform.
Do you agree or disagree with this approach? Why? - Option #2: 60/30 Special Early Retirement Expansion: Under current law, teachers aged 62 with 30 years of service can access special early retirement with reduced penalties, augmentation, and cost-of-living adjustments. This proposal would expand that option to teachers aged 60 with 30 years of service, providing a more affordable early retirement option for those close to retirement age. To keep it cost-effective, the cost-of-living adjustments would match those of normal retirement.
What are your thoughts on expanding this option? Do you agree or disagree? |