Deadline double standard: Newton superintendent frustrated by stalled SSA funding
"Schools have to send their information to the courthouse by March 7 this year, before March 15 when documents are going out to people. We're asked to share our tax rate for next year at a point where that deadline is not flexible," he said. "School funding has been set on time once in the past 10 years."
Rep. Jon Dunwell and Sen. Ken Rozenboom told Newton school board members during their March 24 meeting that over 1,500 bills had been filed this year. And although Messinger sympathized with lawmakers for having such a busy session, he argued many of the other education bills introduced are not as pressing.
State Supplemental Aid (SSA) for public schools has been stalled for some time, and it is in large part due to disagreements between the Senate and House. The Senate approved a 2 percent SSA rate, but the House has passed a 2.25 percent funding package. The school district has formed a budget with 2 percent in mind.
Typically, legislators have until 30 days after the governor's budget is released to set an SSA rate for public schools. The deadline has long since passed. The superintendent of Newton schools said there is no room for the district to break the law and not submit its budget documents to the courthouse.
"But yet we're in essence hurting the perception of transparency because we know that what we give the courthouse could be off," Messinger said of the school district's proposed levy rates, which were published and sent to residents. "How do we work around that? What can be done to address that with schools?"
Rozenboom felt Messinger was asking fair questions but he was skeptical the Iowa Legislature only met its deadline once in the past decade. But neither knew for sure. Rozenboom couldn't confirm, and Messinger said there could be a chance his information is wrong but from what he could find it was one for 10.
"We're very aware of what the statutory requirement is for us, and we're very aware that we've failed to do that this year," Rozenboom said, who admitted lawmakers dropped the ball. "I guess I think our track record is a little better than that. But that not withstanding it's a perennial question to a perennial problem."
Education is always the most important aspect of the budget, Rozenboom added, and he wishes it was easy to figure out how to spend the state's budget of $9 billion. But the state senator understands lawmakers have put a burden on public schools by not getting their work done on time.
Dunwell noted the House and Senate have passed school funding bills, it's just that the two bills do not agree with each other. In the end, three different parties — the House, the Senate and the governor — need to come to an agreement on what that SSA rate will be. Negotiations are still ongoing.
"That's where we're at as an impasse," Dunwell said. "So we, as a House strategy, have talked a little bit to leadership like you and knowing 2 percent was kind of the bottom and that we were going to hold out a little bit more and see if we could twist the arm of the Senate a little bit and find some additional dollars."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House Speaker Johnson expects "rocky road" for Fed Chair Powell
Washington — House Speaker Mike Johnson said he understands President Trump's frustration with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, but reiterated that he's uncertain about "what the legal parameters are" if the president fires him. Mr. Trump has lashed out at Powell, accusing him of not acting quickly enough to slash interest rates — the Fed has currently set a benchmark rate of 4.25% to 4.5%, where it has remained all year. The president has argued that cutting borrowing costs would boost economic growth, but the central bank has worried that slashing rates could make inflation worse. Powell has also cited the uncertainty of economic impacts of Mr. Trump's tariffs as another factor. Mr. Trump has brought up the idea of firing Powell but later said it's "highly unlikely" he would. "I do believe that he should reduce interest rates, and it's really too much power to be held in the hands of one person or a board," Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, told CBS News' chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett in an interview Wednesday. The decision to raise or lower interest rates is not Powell's alone. Eight times a year, the Federal Open Market Committee, which has 12 members, votes on monetary policy. Mr. Trump nominated Powell as Fed chair during his first term, and then-President Joe Biden subsequently nominated him for a second four-year term that expires in May 2026. "It's a rocky road for him between now and then," Johnson said. "I do believe a lot of economists will say, when the economy is hot, when it's running — and ours is, and we're ramping up lots of great development — that that is not a time for you to reduce interest rates. But I think desperate times call for desperate measures." Johnson said lowering interest rates would help solve the housing affordability crisis. "If you reduce the rates just a small percentage, you can solve that problem," he said. "I think that would be a big thing for the economy and I think he ought to duly consider that. It would save the nation a lot of money and would give a lot more people more opportunity." Johnson made the comments a day ahead of Mr. Trump's visit to the Federal Reserve in Washington. Bryan Kohberger sentenced to life in prison for murders of Idaho students Idaho murders victims' families speak out at Bryan Kohberger's sentencing hearing Johnson says Jeffrey Epstein files controversy is not a hoax Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump can't save Olympic sports through executive order, but he can by funding them
There is probably little good that can come from President Trump's executive order on college sports given that it's legally questionable, vaguely written in terms of enforcement and an unpredictable stick of dynamite thrown into the middle of legislative movement on the current SCORE Act making its way through the House of Representatives. But rather than trying to limit by presidential edict how and what college athletes get paid, there is something Trump could do that would address one of the major concerns for his administration. Much of the executive order focuses on protecting opportunities for Olympic sport athletes. With athletic budgets getting squeezed by up to $20.5 million going directly to athletes thanks to the House vs. NCAA settlement, there's widespread fear that non-revenue programs across the country will be on the chopping block. And given the NCAA's role as the de facto development system for much of America's success at the Olympics every four years, a significantly smaller allotment of scholarships could mean both fewer educational opportunities for young people and an erosion of America's standing on the medal table. So here's a suggestion for the Trump Administration: Want to leave a legacy for Olympic sports? Use government money to fund them. Dan Wolken: Attempts to curb payments to college athletes keep failing. There's only one way forward. In nearly every country around the world except the United States of America, federal dollars are funding Olympic sports programs. But here, it's the responsibility of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and college athletic departments. The former is funded by corporate sponsorships and private donations. The latter is funded by college football. That system, imperfect as it may be, has worked for a long time. If it doesn't work anymore because the economics of college sports have changed, then we need to tweak the system. And if international domination of swimming, track and field and gymnastics is a priority for America, then what's the problem with taxpayers having a little skin in the game? It's not as if public dollars paying for sports is a new concept in this country. You can find the evidence by driving past nearly any pro stadium or arena if you live in a major city. Surely there are some smart people who can figure out how to build a federally funded joint partnership between the USOPC, various National Governing Bodies and the NCAA that coordinates and supports elite athlete development in a handful of Olympic sports that matter most, allowing schools to focus on providing opportunities and educating those who need athletic scholarships to attend college. Admittedly, this idea is a little radical, potentially impractical and rife with unintended consequences. But one way it could work, at least in theory, is that a certain percentage of the top American recruits in the key Olympic pipeline sports would go into a recruiting pool. When they choose a school, this government-funded organization would pay for the four-year scholarship, attach an NIL payment for the athlete to represent the organization and provide a grant to the school as reimbursement for the development cost. To make it more equitable, schools would be limited to a certain number of recruits every year from that elite pool of athletes. The rest of the roster would be filled with either foreign athletes or non-elite American recruits that they must pay for themselves. One obvious criticism of this plan is that smaller schools would get squeezed out even further, given that they're more likely to have a budget crisis than a Texas or an Ohio State and less likely to recruit elite athletes. This might require the NCAA to rethink how it stratifies schools into three divisions and instead move toward a two-tiered model where you either meet certain scholarship and funding standards to be in the Olympic development division or compete in the non-Olympic division, which would functionally be more like intramural or club sports. And maybe none of this is workable. But the point is, it's time to come up with some creative, bold solutions rather than just whining about how schools can't afford to pay for their non-revenue sports anymore. For many, many years, the USOPC has gotten a free ride on the back of the NCAA system, which has only been possible because universities illegally colluded not to share revenues with the athletes that played a significant role in generating them. But the good news is, all the systems are in place to keep Team USA's supremacy intact. There has to be a way for more formal collaboration between the USOPC and the NCAA that can save scholarships, development opportunities and teams from being cut. It just needs the funding. And the federal government can make that happen. Trump can make that happen. If he wants a real and lasting legacy as a president who kept the Olympic movement stable at a time of necessary change in college sports, that's how he can do it. Not an executive order destined to be picked apart and ultimately made irrelevant. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump can't save Olympic sports through EO, but could do this
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Trump can't save Olympic sports through executive order, but he can by funding them
There is probably little good that can come from President Trump's executive order on college sports given that it's legally questionable, vaguely written in terms of enforcement and an unpredictable stick of dynamite thrown into the middle of legislative movement on the current SCORE Act making its way through the House of Representatives. But rather than trying to limit by presidential edict how and what college athletes get paid, there is something Trump could do that would address one of the major concerns for his administration. Much of the executive order focuses on protecting opportunities for Olympic sport athletes. With athletic budgets getting squeezed by up to $20.5 million going directly to athletes thanks to the House vs. NCAA settlement, there's widespread fear that non-revenue programs across the country will be on the chopping block. And given the NCAA's role as the de facto development system for much of America's success at the Olympics every four years, a significantly smaller allotment of scholarships could mean both fewer educational opportunities for young people and an erosion of America's standing on the medal table. So here's a suggestion for the Trump Administration: Want to leave a legacy for Olympic sports? Use government money to fund them. Dan Wolken: Attempts to curb payments to college athletes keep failing. There's only one way forward. In nearly every country around the world except the United States of America, federal dollars are funding Olympic sports programs. But here, it's the responsibility of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and college athletic departments. The former is funded by corporate sponsorships and private donations. The latter is funded by college football. That system, imperfect as it may be, has worked for a long time. If it doesn't work anymore because the economics of college sports have changed, then we need to tweak the system. And if international domination of swimming, track and field and gymnastics is a priority for America, then what's the problem with taxpayers having a little skin in the game? It's not as if public dollars paying for sports is a new concept in this country. You can find the evidence by driving past nearly any pro stadium or arena if you live in a major city. Surely there are some smart people who can figure out how to build a federally funded joint partnership between the USOPC, various National Governing Bodies and the NCAA that coordinates and supports elite athlete development in a handful of Olympic sports that matter most, allowing schools to focus on providing opportunities and educating those who need athletic scholarships to attend college. Admittedly, this idea is a little radical, potentially impractical and rife with unintended consequences. But one way it could work, at least in theory, is that a certain percentage of the top American recruits in the key Olympic pipeline sports would go into a recruiting pool. When they choose a school, this government-funded organization would pay for the four-year scholarship, attach an NIL payment for the athlete to represent the organization and provide a grant to the school as reimbursement for the development cost. To make it more equitable, schools would be limited to a certain number of recruits every year from that elite pool of athletes. The rest of the roster would be filled with either foreign athletes or non-elite American recruits that they must pay for themselves. One obvious criticism of this plan is that smaller schools would get squeezed out even further, given that they're more likely to have a budget crisis than a Texas or an Ohio State and less likely to recruit elite athletes. This might require the NCAA to rethink how it stratifies schools into three divisions and instead move toward a two-tiered model where you either meet certain scholarship and funding standards to be in the Olympic development division or compete in the non-Olympic division, which would functionally be more like intramural or club sports. And maybe none of this is workable. But the point is, it's time to come up with some creative, bold solutions rather than just whining about how schools can't afford to pay for their non-revenue sports anymore. For many, many years, the USOPC has gotten a free ride on the back of the NCAA system, which has only been possible because universities illegally colluded not to share revenues with the athletes that played a significant role in generating them. But the good news is, all the systems are in place to keep Team USA's supremacy intact. There has to be a way for more formal collaboration between the USOPC and the NCAA that can save scholarships, development opportunities and teams from being cut. It just needs the funding. And the federal government can make that happen. Trump can make that happen. If he wants a real and lasting legacy as a president who kept the Olympic movement stable at a time of necessary change in college sports, that's how he can do it. Not an executive order destined to be picked apart and ultimately made irrelevant.
