Bills to boost starting teacher pay, offer ‘school choice,' both advance in House
The Montana House advanced a couple of significant education proposals this week including a bill to increase starting teacher pay and one to support children in private school.
One bill passed with significant support, one by a hair.
But both bills garnered criticism from legislators during debate and will need to withstand scrutiny in appropriations and another vote on the floor to move to the Senate.
House Bill 252, to increase starting teacher pay, passed 93-7 with bipartisan support. House Bill 320, to provide support for 'school choice,' passed 51-48.
Sponsored by Rep. Llew Jones, R-Conrad, HB 252 provides incentives for academic achievement and offers other support for educators, such as tools districts can use for housing in areas of high cost, in addition to starting teacher pay.
The STARS Act, the Student and Teacher Advancement for Results and Success, is supported by the Governor's Office, and Jones said it was designed with input from communities and education groups.
'It's had a lot of collaboration across the state,' Jones said.
Previous legislation to try to boost starting teacher pay didn't lead to desired results, and Rep. Jane Gillette, R-Three Forks, wanted to know if HB 252 would be different.
'Why would this bill help schools retain new teachers better than the one that we passed?' Gillette said.
Jones said the amount of money wasn't enough to encourage districts to participate before, but the proof of concept worked. He said at least one district is already negotiating based on the bill, and it puts sufficient money into the program, $50 million as opposed to a couple million.
Rep. Luke Muszkiewicz, D-Helena, said he's a former trustee and supports the bill, but he would be remiss in not pointing out its shortcomings.
He said many people feel it won't help school districts retain more experienced teachers, who help mentor newer teachers, and school districts still face an inflation gap of $92.5 million.
'While the STARS Act represents a significant ongoing investment, it will not serve as the leap forward we would hope if it doesn't at least close that inflation gap,' Muszkiewicz said.
***
HB 320, Montana's Academic Prosperity Program for Scholars, or MAPPS, is a program to help families afford to send their children to private schools, said sponsor Rep. Lee Deming, R-Laurel.
It offers donors and families a tax credit. Deming said the bill was amended in committee to set a $10 million aggregate ceiling limit for parents buying 'qualified' education expenses, and the same ceiling for donations to the MAPPS account.
An escalator clause allows the ceilings to lift up to that point, but only if both sides hit 80% of their limits.
Before the bill was amended, critics said the credits in it and another existing education credit had the potential to cost the state $100 million in revenue within a decade, and cost remained a concern on the House floor.
The bill passed on second reading by one vote but drew bipartisan opposition. Legislators questioned cost and a lack of accountability.
Rep. Sherry Essmann, R-Billings, raised numerous concerns, including that a program manager wouldn't get a job review for five years.
'How many of us had jobs where we could work … for five years before we got a job performance review? That is totally out of line,' Essmann said.
Deming countered that the bill provides for termination.
Essmann also said the types of things for which parents can claim a credit are broad, and they're things parents of students who go to public schools cannot claim — 'they just have to pay for them.'
Rep. Mark Thane, D-Missoula, also said he saw multiple problems with the bill, including that it could cost the state more money every year with the 20% escalator. A fiscal analysis estimates it's projected to cost the state nearly $12 million by 2029.
'You can see that over time, this could be a runaway freight train in terms of cost,' Thane said.
Thane, a former superintendent, also said a savvy accountant could help a client avoid paying income taxes, for example, with a $200,000 donation that credits a corporation or individual with $65,000 during the span of three years.
'For the next three years, I can zero out the bottom line of my Montana state income tax return with this credit,' Thane said. 'That means those individuals or those corporations will not contribute to any state initiatives or state programs during that three-year period.'
But in favor of the bill, Rep. Terry Falk, R-Kalispell, said he views the 'value proposition' in the bill similar to the way he sees money that goes to fight crime or build roads — 'I think school choice, universal school choice, is right there.'
Children who aren't in public schools also save taxpayers costly infrastructure, he said, and he believes the time has come for the 'school choice' legislation.
'School choice is a necessary, reasonable need in our American society,' Falk said.
Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe, R-Billings, said families are wondering how to pay the bills with the economy. She said Montana is funding public education at a high rate, and legislators shouldn't be afraid to do the same for families who want something different.
'They also want to have the opportunity to put their kids through private school,' Seekins-Crowe said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
27 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
How to make climate-friendly and sustainable choices when shopping online
One way to be climate-friendly: Shop sustainably. But figuring out which products count as 'sustainable' can be hard, especially when buying online. As ordering with a computer or phone becomes more ubiquitous, the number of online products labeled sustainable is also increasing. Yet there is no single seal of approval across e-commerce platforms that verifies whether something is climate-friendly, partly because there are multiple ways to define sustainability. Third-party nonprofit organizations study manufacturers and sellers' practices and offer certifications that are displayed online. Government programs such as the Agriculture Department's organic certification or Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star efficiency standard are also often listed. Large e-commerce websites may highlight the certifications with special icons, hyperlinks to certification programs or written descriptions. The mixture can invite homework from buyers. Elwyn Grainger-Jones, who leads a nonprofit that certifies product sustainability, said there also isn't a single clearinghouse that tracks which third-party certifications are the most credible. 'Therein lies an issue and a challenge,' said Grainger-Jones, CEO of Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute. 'What we haven't seen so far is a third-third party step in and be the information portal on what a good certification is." And while shopping online might come with more packaging, it doesn't always come with more emissions. A person shopping online may even emit less than if they went to the store in person, according to a study published in Environmental Science and Technology. But there are a lot of variables, including which e-commerce site they use, the shipping speed they select and how close they live to a brick-and-mortar alternative. There might not be one surefire way to tell sustainable products from unsustainable ones, but certification experts shared tips on what to look for. Many apply to in-person purchases, too, so you can keep them in mind for the supermarket or furniture store. Know how sustainability is measured There are multiple measures of sustainability, and sometimes positive attributes can be offset by negative ones. Third-party certification is meant to show that an independent group studied these factors. Some focus on one issue, while others look holistically at how different factors fit together. Manufacturing an item might have low emissions but use lots of water. A company might reduce plastic, but if its products don't last long, they can still wind up in the landfill. Other sustainability concerns include energy efficiency, how far the item has traveled and how resources were extracted to make it. Certification labeling also varies. Sometimes it's printed on the product, sometimes it's listed on the manufacturer's website and sometimes the certifying body lists the products that have earned its approval. Large retail websites, in turn, often list certifications in a product description. Check whether it's verified by a third party Third-party verification is a core avenue for determining whether a manufacturer's sustainability claims are legitimate. 'Ideally you want to look for some certifying bodies because they've removed some of that up-front labor that as a consumer you otherwise might have to do," said Clementina Consens of B-Lab, which certifies companies that meet environmental and social standards. Grainger-Jones said some companies create their own self-certifications that look convincing but don't mean much. 'You can go and buy a self-declared certificate for a couple of thousand dollars,' he said. Look for quantifiable and transparent climate goals If a company is serious about sustainability, it should have its practices assessed and make that information easy for customers to find, Consens said. She said she looks to see whether a company has completed an environmental impact assessment, whether it publicizes its findings or whether there is any tangible data on the company's greenhouse gas emissions, water or energy use. Large e-commerce websites such as Amazon, Walmart and Target have set emissions benchmarks and other climate-related targets for their suppliers and list their own companywide sustainability goals. Walmart, for example, has released extensive information on its Project Gigaton, including a list of participating suppliers, definitions of its recognition tiers and science-based requirements for suppliers' goals. Target publishes its climate goals, and has provided updates on where the company has surpassed expectations, and where it has fallen short. It also displays icons and hyperlinks next to products that meet sustainability goals. Amazon's Climate Pledge Friendly program vets products based on a set of verified third-party certifications and posts a green leaf label alongside products that meet the certifications, along with hyperlinks. 'Having those third-party standards is super important for credibility,' said Nneka Leiba, Amazon's principal sustainability specialist. Certifications that aren't quantifiable or are too permissive don't meet Leiba's bar for inclusion in the program. She said when evaluating a certification, she looks to see whether it's following International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards, or other relevant standards. She said certifications should be backed by scientific rigor and require companies or products meet specific benchmarks. Leiba said manufacturers' efforts to become certified can be good for their business. She said products in the Climate Pledge Friendly program experience a 12% sales increase in the first year after earning the green leaf badge. 'That cycle is really beneficial to our customer, and beneficial to the environment,' she said. ___
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Paxton's lead over Cornyn nearly cut in half: poll
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's (R) lead over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) in the state's Senate primary is narrowing, according to a new survey from Texas Southern University's Barbara Jordan Public Policy Research and Survey Center survey. The poll showed Paxton holding a five-point lead among likely primary voters, 44 percent to 39 percent, in a two-way race with Cornyn. Another 17 percent said they were undecided. The last Texas Southern University poll released in May showed Paxton with a nine-point lead over Cornyn. The five-point gap between Paxton and Cornyn remains the same in a hypothetical three-way race with Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas), who has been considering a primary run. Paxton leads with 35 percent while Cornyn trails at 30 percent. Hunt comes in with 22 percent support. Another 13 percent said they were unsure. The poll released on Wednesday comes after a separate Emerson College survey released last week showed the incumbent senator and attorney general locked in a dead heat. That poll showed Cornyn leading Paxton 30 percent to 29 percent, with five percent saying they prefer another candidate and 37 percent saying they were undecided. Most polls released before last week's Emerson College poll showed Paxton with a double-digit lead over Cornyn, leading to questions about the incumbent senator's electability in a primary. Cornyn's allies have pulled out all of the stops in an effort to boost him. According to The Texas Tribune, the Senate GOP leadership-affiliated One Nation has spent more than $4 million in advertising, while Texans for a Conservative Majority, another pro-Cornyn group, has spent $3.2 million. The pro-Cornyn Conservative Majority Project has spent roughly $500,000. The latest poll from Texas Southern University's Barbara Jordan Public Policy Research and Survey Center was conducted from Aug. 6 to Aug. 12, 2025 among 1,500 likely Texas Republican primary voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.53 percentage points.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Hoosier elections must remain free and fair
Will Indiana follow Texas' lead in redistricting mid-decade? (Getty Images) Vice President J.D. Vance recently visited Indiana to meet with Gov. Mike Braun and Republican leaders. They discussed a plan to redraw the state's congressional districts this year, mid-decade, in order to gain one or both of the seats currently held by Indiana Democrats and rig the 2026 mid-terms so Republicans can preserve their very slim House majority. We are scholars and teachers of U.S. law and politics. And we are deeply troubled by the Trump administration's attempt to rewrite the electoral rules mid-stream to maximize its power, and by Indiana Republicans' failure to immediately reject such a transparently partisan move, which would corrupt the fairness of our elections. Whatever our party affiliation, all Hoosiers should care about fairness. We would never support changing the rules in the middle of a basketball game so that our team would gain unfair advantage. We want winners to win fair and square. In sports, and in politics. Such corruption is possible because the process whereby Congressional districts are created is localized and susceptible to being rigged by those bent on gaining an unfair partisan advantage. According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress allocates seats in the House of Representatives to states based on population. A census must be taken within every ten years to determine how population shifts may change the number of Congressional districts allocated to each state — a process called reapportionment. The actual shape of Congressional districts in each state is determined by state legislation. Indiana's House GOP congressional contingent lines up behind redistricting effort In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that Congressional districts must be of roughly equal population and honor the principle of 'one person, one vote.' Since then, Congressional redistricting has almost always been done on the ten-year cycle, except when federal courts have required certain states to redraw their maps to bring them into compliance with federal election law. But now Texas Republicans are trying to redraw their Congressional map mid-decade. The reason why: because President Trump has very publicly called upon them to do this, telling CNBC's Squawk Box: 'We have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats. We have a really good governor, and we have good people in Texas. And I won Texas . . . and we are entitled to five more seats.' It should be obvious that Trump's vote total in the 2024 presidential election confers no GOP entitlement to extra House seats, which are not allocated based on presidential popularity (indeed, while Trump only received 56% of the 2024 Presidential vote, the Texas GOP controls 66% of the state's House seats). If the party wants five more seats in Texas or two more in Indiana, then the correct way to obtain them is to run strong candidates in districts currently held by Democrats, and win the elections in those districts, fair and square. The administration's push for Texas, Indiana, and other 'red' states to redistrict now has one very clear purpose: to change the electoral map, midstream, so that Trump and his party can retain control of the entire federal government by giving more power to voters they like while taking electoral power away from voters they don't like. And that is simply not fair. Hoosier citizens, and not statehouse Republicans, should choose who they want to represent them in their congressional districts in 2026 and 2028 and 2030. And they can freely choose only if the elections are fair. Any party that tries to try to change district boundaries in advance of an election just so they have a better chance of winning the election is doing something that has a simple name: cheating. Basketball coach John Wooden, a legendary Hoosier, famously taught his players to 'never lie, never cheat, never steal.' Indiana Republicans should heed coach Wooden's famous words, politely refuse to do the bidding of the Trump administration, and stand tall, with their Democratic counterparts, and all patriotic Hoosiers, in defense of the fairness of our elections.
