University of Wyoming Lab School bill approved in House committee, headed for floor
Co-sponsored by Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, Senate File 126, 'Establishment of a K-8 public lab school,' passed through committee in a 5-4 vote Wednesday. SF 126 comes after a set of 'unfortunate circumstances' between UW and Albany County School District 1, wherein the two educational entities could not agree on a memorandum of understanding governing school operations, according to Rothfuss.
That disagreement led to a 'unilateral decision' by the UW trustees, and a subsequent later announcement by the ACSD1 school board, to close the UW Lab School at the end of this academic year, Rothfuss explained to his fellow lawmakers this session.
He also acknowledged before the House committee Wednesday that neither the university nor ACSD1 is in support of SF 126.
Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie (2025)
Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie
'The university wants to close the lab school, and they have made that clear,' he said. 'The district doesn't want to continue to work with the lab school. … They see it as a funding threat.'
But teachers, students and staff at the lab school feel very differently — and feel unheard, after the UW trustees first made the decision to close it at a meeting in Sheridan, not Laramie, Rothfuss said.
Representatives from both UW and ACSD1 testified against SF 126 Wednesday.
Mike Smith, UW vice president for governmental affairs and community engagement, said that the decision to close the lab school was 'the epitome of a local control issue,' and that the lab school was 'a great school but serves no educational purpose' that the UW College of Education cannot fulfill without it.
ACSD1 Superintendent Dr. John Goldhardt said that keeping the lab school open represents a financial threat to the district, continuing that the effort behind SF 126 was 'nontransparent' as ACSD1 trustees were not informed or involved.
In comments limited due to time constraints while committees work to push legislation through in the final weeks of the session, former students at the lab school, parents and teachers pleaded with the committee Wednesday to pass SF 126.
Julia Crossland, who identified herself as a young Wyoming teacher, said her life was deeply impacted by the UW Lab School. She graduated in 2023 with a degree in secondary social studies education, after student teaching in Platte County.
'I was lucky enough to be able to participate in a specially designed practicum experience (including time at the lab school),' Crossland said. 'Lab has allowed us to work hands-on with students, and try out different teaching methods.'
UW Lab School art 1
Tori Brantner and Emily Mai work on their 4x4 projects in art class on Dec. 6, 2023, at the University of Wyoming Lab School.
Bradley Rettler, who said his own two children attend the lab school, said it is an important tool for keeping students training to teach in Wyoming. Rettler, who is an associate professor of philosophy at UW, said when he asks freshmen majoring in education why they chose Laramie, one of their top reasons is the lab school.
'We want our teachers to have grown up in the state, to have gone to college in the state, and to stay in the state,' Rettler said. 'The lab school is one of the things that keeps them in the state.'
Rep. Tomi Strock, R-Douglas, said that supporting the UW Lab School is much like supporting rural schools in Wyoming, where parents express a deep need for a facility of choice.
Rep. Tomi Strock, R-Douglas (2025)
Rep. Tomi Strock, R-Douglas
'We fight for (rural schools). School districts usually want to close them, and parents get out there and fight,' Strock said. 'This is no different.'
Rep. Tom Kelly, R-Sheridan, said that he was 'on the fence' about SF 126, but that the groundswell of support pushed him toward forwarding the bill out of committee.
Rep. Tom Kelly, R-Sheridan (2025)
Rep. Tom Kelly, R-Sheridan
'This is too large of an issue, with too much public input, and too many people paying attention, for this committee to shut it down at this moment,' Kelly said. 'This deserves its time in the House.'
However, Rep. Martha Lawley, R-Worland; Rep. McKay Erickson, R-Afton; and Rep. Laurie Bratten, R-Sheridan, all said they could not support the bill. Erickson said he worried a state decision would impinge on local control, and Bratten said she had concerns over how the bill structured administration at the lab school.
'There is a lot of verbiage here that is pretty gray,' Bratten said. 'Fundamentally, I would like to see this as a charter. … It is such a strange hybrid.'
Lawley pointed out that the lab school has not been performing for the last several years, and said that SF 126 would force UW and ACSD1 to operate a facility they no longer see as effective.
'Part of my concerns, it begins with the idea that the school hasn't been functioning for five years, basically, and so it is not like we are going to (pass SF 126) and all that is going to come back together,' Lawley said.
Rothfuss responded that the school may have struggled for the last few years, but it has a 138-year history.
'Do we get involved? In my view, that is a legislative decision. We are electeds, and this is a decision that should be made by electeds,' Rothfuss said. 'Believe me, (the College of Education) thrived with the lab school for many years.'
Kelly, Strock and Rep. Joel Guggenmos, R-Riverton; Rep. Daniel Singh, R-Cheyenne; and Rep. Ocean Andrew, R-Laramie, voted for SF 126. Bratten, Erickson, Lawley and Rep. JD Williams, R-Lusk, voted against the bill.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
7 days ago
- Time Magazine
The Legacy of Robert La Follette's Progressive Vision
President Donald Trump's return to the White House has left many progressive Americans feeling disillusioned, resigned, and apathetic. Warnings about the dangers of the former president fell flat with a little more than half the electorate last fall. And many Trump supporters remain fiercely loyal—despite his most egregious violations of democratic principles. Democrats have spent the last several months struggling to fight back against Trump's policies—even those that are massively unpopular. The story of Senator and Governor Robert M. La Follette, a Republican from Wisconsin who is widely regarded as one of the greatest progressive politicians in American history, might offer some inspiration for progressives struggling today. His legacy suggests that securing political change requires persistent activism, tempered by patience. La Follette's history reminds activists that continuing to push steadily forward toward specific objectives offers them the best chance of eventually achieving their political goals. In 1873, just before becoming a student at the University of Wisconsin, La Follette heard Edward Ryan, soon to become the state's Chief Justice, give a commencement speech. Ryan bluntly defined the central questions of the coming era: 'Which shall rule—wealth or man; which shall lead—money or intellect; who shall fill public stations—educated and patriotic freemen, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital?' This question would animate La Follette's career as he tried to live up to UW president John Bascom's insistence that students accept the obligations of citizenship and their duty to serve the state. La Follette came to share Bascom's passion for social and economic justice, including his support of labor associations and women's rights. In preparation for a career in public service, he honed his considerable oratory skills and ultimately earned a law degree in 1880. La Follette became a part of the burgeoning progressive movement, that rose in response to conditions of the long Gilded Age. By the late 19th century, the economy was unregulated, unstable at best, and frequently rocked by recessions and depressions. Immigrants poured into cities, providing much of the labor force of a newly industrialized America, which saw its economy become the largest in the world—thanks in large part to their low wages. Dreams of the U.S. as a land of glorious opportunity seemed available exclusively to the already wealthy. Most Americans worked menial, often dangerous, jobs that were so low paying that entire families had to work to survive. After long hours in dangerous conditions, workers returned to urban ghettos rife with poverty, crime, and disease. Precious, nonrenewable resources were decimated, with no thought to their conservation, let alone preservation. Read More: As Schumer's Stock Falls, Here's Who's Vying to Lead Democrats Against Trump Too often, government appeared, at best, helpless to curb the harmful excesses, and, at worst, a willing collaborator in the profitable carnage. Politicians like New York's Boss George Plunkett spoke openly and approvingly of 'honest graft.' A seat in the Senate (often referred to as "the Millionaire's Club") could be purchased merely to increase a wealthy man's status. State legislators frequently chose U.S. senators thanks to backroom bribes. Powerful trusts cornered markets and set prices, controlling such necessities as beef, steel, sugar, oil, and money. The attitudes of the wealthy businessmen who dominated the Gilded Age were summarized by George Frederick Baer, the spokesman for the coal mine owners during the anthracite strike of 1902: 'The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected and cared for—not by the labor agitators, but by the Christian men of property to whom God in His infinite wisdom has given control of the property rights of the country.' La Follette fiercely disagreed, and saw the ownership class as a 'hostile force' that threatened to 'thwart the will of the people and menace the perpetuity of representative government.' La Follette and his fellow progressives dedicated themselves to fighting for a better future of the nation. He won election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1884 and served three terms. But his first two bids for Wisconsin's governorship failed because opponents bribed delegates at the state's Republican nominating convention. In 1900, he undertook a third bid, promising to eliminate the corruption of the increasingly powerful political bosses and machines by enacting the direct nomination of all political candidates. His determination to return power to the people galvanized voters and carried him to victory. Under La Follette's leadership, Wisconsin pioneered many initiatives to more equitably redistribute America's wealth and power. Most importantly, he took on big interests, especially the railroads and other powerful utilities. At La Follette's behest, the state legislature enacted a thoroughgoing and efficient reform of these industries. The governor also pioneered civil service reform, insisting that government jobs be awarded on merit. Additionally, his administration regulated lobbyists, enacted stronger provisions against corrupt practices, implemented environmental measures, and reformed Wisconsin's tax system to be more equitable, nearly doubling the amount paid by railroads. He also changed how the state elected officials, fulfilling his pledge to enact primary elections for all elected offices so no one could purchase them in back room deals. By 1906, when La Follette moved to the U.S. Senate, progressive governors across the nation were eagerly trying to duplicate many of his initiatives. In the Senate, La Follette continued his push to regulate the railroads, including by beefing up the powers of Interstate Commerce Commission, and limiting the number of consecutive hours railroads could require employees to work. He contributed significantly to the passage of two constitutional amendments: The 16th, which allowed the federal government to levy a graduated income tax (which La Follette saw as a path toward more equitable income redistribution) and the 17th, which established the direct election of U.S. senators, so that voters couldn't be corrupted like state legislators had been. In 1915, La Follette pushed through the Seaman's Act, which required ships to carry enough lifeboats for all passengers and crew. He saw the recent Titanic disaster as proof that the lives of the poor were less valued, and argued that all lives were worthy of equal protection. Perhaps La Follette's most controversial act as a senator was his outspoken opposition to U.S. entry into World War I. President Woodrow Wilson presented the war as a culmination of progressive reform ideas, promising it would 'make the world safe for democracy.' La Follette dismissed this assertion, warning that war was "a dreadful diversion for peoples demanding juster distribution of wealth. War is the money changer's opportunity, and the social reformer's doom.' Read More: How Wisconsin Became the Ultimate Purple State This position fueled massive blowback. Despite this national vilification, however, Wisconsin voters reelected La Follette in 1922. In 1924—only a year before he died—La Follette ran for president as an independent and captured 17% of the vote. And after he died, his son was elected to the Senate for another 21 years. One of La Follette's greatest gifts was the ability to recognize that achieving progressives' goals was not a short term project. 'We are,' he said, 'slow to realize that democracy is a life and involves continual struggle.' He set out to inspire the like minded to take part in what he envisioned as a perpetual movement. La Follette counseled both immediate action…and patience: 'It will not be possible to restore industrial and commercial freedom at once.' But it was important to begin the process. For as much as La Follette achieved, his prediction that the struggle would be long proved accurate. Much of the original progressive agenda, with its emphasis on federal regulation, stalled during the final years of La Follette's career. After World War I, the nation experienced a period of disillusionment and reform fatigue. The successes as well as the failures of the progressive movement contributed to its stagnation: with the worst excesses remedied, it was hard to create consensus on next steps. Progressives also encountered reversals as the wealthy fought to regain undue political influence. La Follette anticipated this regression too, noting that 'tyranny and oppression are just as possible under democratic forms [of government] as any other.' Yet, he counseled hope rather than despair. Again, this proved prescient. Reformers kept fighting after La Follette died in 1925, and their perseverance paid off during the New Deal in the 1930s. Later, the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s reactivated other dormant progressive ideas. During his presidential campaign, La Follette urged his fellow citizens to recognize that 'There is an unending struggle to make and keep government representative…Mere passive citizenship is not enough. Men must be aggressive for what is right if government is to be saved from those who are aggressive for what is wrong.' That statement—and La Follette's philosophy more broadly— provides a blueprint for liberals navigating the Trump era. For disillusioned progressives feeling powerless to stop President Trump's initiatives, La Follette's career exemplifies the value of rejecting the siren song of frustration and complacency in favor of persistence in pursuing progressive ideals. Only continuous efforts and vigilance can safeguard American democracy and create a more equal and just society. Nancy C. Unger is professor of history at Santa Clara University, and the author of the prize-winning biography Fighting Bob La Follette: The Righteous Reformer. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
01-07-2025
Wisconsin's Democratic governor reaches budget deal with Republicans to cut taxes, fund university
MADISON, Wis. -- Wisconsin Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Republicans who control the state Legislature announced a deal Tuesday on a new two-year budget that cuts income taxes, increases funding for the Universities of Wisconsin despite a threatened cut and raises taxes to pay for transportation projects. The deal in the battleground state, where Evers and Republicans have a long history of not working together, emerged the day after the deadline for enacting a new budget. However, there is no government shutdown in Wisconsin when the budget is late. The Legislature is scheduled to pass it this week. Evers called the deal 'a pro-kid budget that's a win for Wisconsin's kids, families, and our future.' Here is what to know about Wisconsin's budget deal: Evers and Republicans agreed to $1.3 billion in income tax cuts largely targeting the middle class. More than 1.6 million people will have their taxes cut an average of $180 annually. The deal would expand the state's second lowest income tax bracket and make the first $24,000 of income for people age 67 and over tax-free. It also eliminates the sales tax on electricity, saving taxpayers about $156 million over two years. Republican legislative leaders praised the deal as providing meaningful tax relief to the middle class and retirees. 'This budget delivers on our two biggest priorities: tax relief for Wisconsin and reforms to make government more accountable,' Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said in a statement. And Senate Republican Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu praised it as a compromise that cuts taxes but also stabilizes the state's child care system and strengthens schools by increasing special education funding. The Universities of Wisconsin would see a $256 million increase over two years, the largest funding increase for the UW system in about two decades. UW Regents had asked for an $855 million overall increase and Republicans in June floated the possibility of an $87 million cut. The deal also imposes a faculty minimum workload requirement and calls for an independent study on the system's future sustainability. There will be $200 million in additional tax revenue to pay for transportation projects, but Evers and Republican leaders did not detail where that money would come from. The agreement increases funding for child care programs by $330 million over two years, a third of which will be direct payments to providers. The money will replace the Child Care Counts program started during the COVID-19 pandemic. That program, which provides funding to child care providers, expired on Monday. Evers, Democrats and child care advocates have been pushing for additional funding to address child care shortages throughout the state. Funding for K-12 special education programs will increase by $500 million. State employees, including at the university, would get a 3% raise this year and a 2% raise next year. The budget deal was reached after Republicans killed more than 600 Evers proposals in the budget, including legalizing marijuana, expanding Medicaid and raising taxes on millionaires. It is the first time the Legislature has missed the June 30 budget deadline since 2017. All three prior budgets passed by the Legislature since Evers has been governor were on time, until this one. Republicans have held the majority in the Legislature since 2011. Republicans negotiated more with Evers on this budget than the previous three when their majorities in the Senate and Assembly were larger. Democrats gained seats in November and are pushing to take majority control of at least one legislative chamber next year. Amid the ongoing talks last week, Assembly Republicans urged bipartisanship to reach a deal. The Legislature's budget-writing committee is scheduled to vote on the plan Tuesday. The full Legislature is set to meet starting Wednesday to give it final passage. Republicans hold a narrow 18-15 majority in the Senate, and with two GOP senators previously saying they planned to vote against the budget, some Democratic votes were expected to be needed to pass it. Once the budget clears the Legislature, Evers will be able to make changes using his expansive partial veto powers. But his office said Evers would not veto any budget provisions that were part of the deal he reached with Republicans. Evers, who is midway through his second term, has said he will announce his decision on whether to seek a third term after he has signed the budget. He has 10 business days to take action on the spending plan once the Legislature passes it.
CBS News
01-07-2025
- CBS News
Wisconsin's Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, Republicans reach budget deal to cut taxes, fund university
Wisconsin Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Republicans who control the state Legislature announced a deal Tuesday on a new two-year budget that cuts income taxes, increases funding for the Universities of Wisconsin despite a threatened cut and raises fees to pay for transportation projects. The deal in the battleground state, where Evers and Republicans have a long history of not working together, emerged the day after the deadline for enacting a new budget. However, there is no government shutdown in Wisconsin when the budget is late. The Legislature is scheduled to pass it this week. Evers called the deal "a pro-kid budget that's a win for Wisconsin's kids, families, and our future." Here is what to know about Wisconsin's budget deal: Evers and Republicans agreed to $1.3 billion in income tax cuts largely targeting the middle class. More than 1.6 million people will have their taxes cut an average of $180 annually. The deal would expand the state's second lowest income tax bracket and make the first $24,000 of income for people age 67 and over tax-free. It also eliminates the sales tax on electricity, saving taxpayers about $178 million over two years. Republican legislative leaders praised the deal as providing meaningful tax relief to the middle class and retirees. "This budget delivers on our two biggest priorities: tax relief for Wisconsin and reforms to make government more accountable," Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said in a statement. And Senate Republican Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu praised it as a compromise that cuts taxes but also stabilizes the state's child care system and strengthens schools by increasing special education funding. The Universities of Wisconsin would see a $256 million increase over two years, the largest funding increase for the UW system in about two decades. UW Regents had asked for an $855 million overall increase and Republicans in June floated the possibility of an $87 million cut. The deal also imposes a faculty minimum workload requirement and calls for an independent study on the system's future sustainability. Republicans will be voting on a plan Tuesday that would close the 127-year-old Green Bay Correctional Center by 2029 as Evers proposed. However, it's not clear what other elements of Evers' prison overhaul plan Republicans will endorse. That part of the budget was not under the negotiated deal with Evers, which means he could make changes to it with his powerful partial veto. There will be $200 million in additional tax revenue to pay for transportation projects, but Evers and Republican leaders did not detail where that money would come from. The agreement increases funding for child care programs by $330 million over two years, a third of which will be direct payments to providers. The money will replace the Child Care Counts program started during the COVID-19 pandemic. That program, which provides funding to child care providers, expired on Monday. Evers, Democrats and child care advocates have been pushing for additional funding to address child care shortages throughout the state. Funding for K-12 special education programs will increase by $500 million. State employees, including at the university, would get a 3% raise this year and a 2% raise next year. The budget deal was reached after Republicans killed more than 600 Evers proposals in the budget, including legalizing marijuana, expanding Medicaid and raising taxes on millionaires. Democrats said Republicans were forced to compromise because they didn't have enough votes in the Senate to pass the budget without Democratic support. Democrats gained seats in November under the new maps drawn by Evers and narrowed the Republican majority in the Senate to 18-15. Two Republican senators said they planned to vote against the budget, resulting in Senate Democrats being brought into the budget negotiations with Evers and Republicans. "What we are seeing playing out in this budget is the consequence of Wisconsin's new fairer maps — legislators working together to find compromise and make meaningful progress for the people of Wisconsin," Democratic Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin said in a statement. Republican budget committee co-chair Sen. Howard Marklein said, "This budget has involved an awful lot of compromise." The deadline for finishing the budget was Monday, but unlike in other states and the federal government there is no shutdown in Wisconsin. Instead, the previous budget remains in place until a new one is signed into law. The Legislature's budget-writing committee was voting on the plan Tuesday. The full Legislature is set to meet starting Wednesday to give it final passage. Once the budget clears the Legislature, Evers will be able to make changes using his expansive partial veto powers. But his office said Evers would not veto any budget provisions that were part of the deal he reached with Republicans. Evers, who is midway through his second term, has said he will announce his decision on whether he will seek a third term after he has signed the budget. He has 10 business days to take action on the spending plan once the Legislature passes it.
