Advocacy in Action
This page is your home for all things legislative and advocacy related. We have an update from our lobbyist at the Capitol each week, summaries of important bills, and then steps for you to get involved!
Contact Your Legislator
IASB®'s Public Policy Agenda
Iowa Legislature
2026 Bill Summaries
Under the Golden Dome
The legislature had another short work week as they await agreement on budget bills, property taxes, and carbon pipelines. The Senate moved several budget bills through committee, but they are largely shell bills and won’t be amended until they reach the floor. The House also passed several budget bills out of subcommittee. We still don’t have House budget targets, and there is no agreement between the two chambers, but this is a positive progress toward the end of the legislative session.
The Senate passed SF 2472, their version of property tax reform. The bill passed with all Democrats but one voting for the bill and three Republicans voting against it. The bill also includes a gas tax increase. The bill’s impact on schools is largely unchanged from the original version. The two biggest changes in the amendment adopted on the floor are restoring the $5.40 levy (the original bill reduced it) and adding language from the House bill that would require districts to have no more than 35% of unspent balance before asking the school budget review committee for additional authority.
The bill replaces the property taxes generated by the additional levy with state dollars, some of which will come from exemptions and credits that are being eliminated. We have been told that using SAVE to replace those property tax dollars is a non-starter with the Senate.
The House continues to work behind the scenes to finalize their version of property tax relief. Senators noted that their quick passage of a bill that hasn’t been agreed to is an effort to jumpstart negotiations.
Other big items outstanding that IASB is interested in include:
The charter school omnibus bill. This bill requires TSS dollars to follow a student who attends a charter school. In addition, it includes language that prohibits the state from imposing any regulations or requirements that would unduly burden nonpublic schools. The bill allows a community partner like a daycare to directly participate in the statewide voluntary preschool program and requires a district to accept any community partner who requests to participate.
Preschool religious changes. The original intent of this bill was to adapt Iowa law to reflect recent Supreme Court rulings. It was amended in the Senate to include the same language as in the charter school bill. The House further amended it by adding a comprehensive overhaul to freedom of speech (confusing and unnecessary) and clarifying that any preschool provider must comply with all the state requirements (a positive change).
ESA fund flexibility. The House passed a bill that says any funds that a district receives because a resident student attends a nonpublic school can be spent for any purpose. The Senate has a different bill that would allow districts to transfer those funds received in the TSS account to the general fund.
Teach Iowa Scholar. The House passed a bill that makes changes to how funds are distributed. Some of those funds would be targeted to teachers in special education and to rural districts.
ISJIT Opportunities. The Senate passed the bankers' bill that would severely limit options for districts to maximize return on investment by limiting the amount that can be invested in ISJIT to 25%. The House has tried three times to bring the bill to the floor but failed.
Under the Golden Dome Video
No Under the Golden Dome video this week. Read the written update above and stay tuned for next week's video with IASB Lobbyist Emily Piper!
Advocacy Action of the Week
No advocacy action this week. Review this week's bill summaries and stay tuned for next week's action!
SAVE Revenue Loss Tool
The House has amended its property tax reform bill. Similar to the Governor’s proposal, the bill is a comprehensive change to the system and includes provisions related to school districts, most notably the amount of SAVE dollars that will be diverted to property tax relief through the Property Tax Equity and Relief Fund (PTER). While the Governor’s proposal intends to increase the amount of SAVE revenue going to PTER to 30% by 2030, the new House proposal would increase the amount of SAVE revenue going to PTER to 30% by 2035. For comparison, 7% of SAVE revenue currently goes into PTER.
To see the impact of this proposed House legislation on your district, use our updated SAVE Revenue Loss Tool.
Bills on the Move
SF 176—Extracurricular Participation by Online Students: The bill allows students who attend an online school to participate in extracurricular activities in their resident district if the attendance center providing the online instruction doesn’t sponsor the activities. It clarifies that students can participate in two activities per semester.
IASB is registered undecided on the bill, but we appreciate the clarity this bill provides on which students can participate in their resident district’s extracurricular activities. The bill passed the House by a vote of 94-2 and passed the Senate by a vote of 47-0.
SF 273—Grooming Definition: This bill amends the definition of grooming to read: any pattern of behavior, which in light of all relevant circumstances, constitutes actions to entice or entrap a student with the intent to take advantage of such student for the benefit of the individual engaging in the pattern of behavior, including but not limited to by engaging in a sex act with the student.
IASB is registered in favor of the bill, but we want to ensure the definition is clear and narrowly defined. The bill passed the Senate last session and passed the House by a vote of 92-0.
SF 2472—Senate Property Tax Proposal: The Senate passed an amended version of their property tax proposal, but discussions are still ongoing between the chambers and governor’s office, so this will not be the final bill. Provisions impacting school districts include:
Raises the foundation level to 100%, instead of the current 88.4%.
Districts’ unspent authorized budget (UAB) cannot exceed 35%.
Districts must adopt a policy to define a targeted range and maximum UAB.
PPEL cannot exceed $1.18: board-approved up to 24 cents and voter-approved up to 94 cents.
Caps a district’s management fund balance over time.
Sets debt service levy limits between $1.89 and $2.84, instead of the current $2.70 and $4.05.
The bill adjusts the current rollback system in a way that is predicted to increase taxable valuation, which means that lowering rates on levies won’t have an impact on the amount of money collected from those levies. This has not been proven, but is the rationale provided by the bill sponsor.
IASB is registered undecided on the bill as conversations continue on property taxes. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 41-4.
HSB 768—Taxpayer Transparency Statements and Setting Tax Rate: This bill attempts to address the timing conflict that school districts may face when the legislature sets SSA late but are still required to set your combined property tax rate in order meet the deadline for sending taxpayer transparency statements. If SSA is set after March 5, districts will keep their tax rate from the previous year for the transparency statement. Once SSA is set, districts will be allowed to raise their property tax rate if necessary.
IASB is registered in support of the bill because it offers flexibility and provides more accurate information to taxpayers in the end. The bill passed the House Ways & Means Committee.
HF 2750—School Security Grant Program: A school security grant program was added as an amendment on a bill that imposes fees on international wire transfers. 20% of the fees collected on these transfers will be allocated to the grant program. It will be administered by the Department of Education and could be used for a variety of school security purposes, including paying a school resource officer (SRO).
IASB is registered in support of the bill because we know school security measures are important but costly, so this can help offset some of those costs. The bill passed the House by a vote of 60-32.
SF 2286—Investing Public Funds: This bill limits the amount of public funds a school district can invest in a joint investment, which would include the Iowa Schools Joint Investment Trust (ISJIT). Districts could only invest 25% of their funds in the trust.
IASB is registered against the bill. We think this limits competition and prevents school districts from getting the best interest rate and in turn the best return on their investment. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 32-13.
HF 2501—Secretary of State Elections Bill: This is a large elections bill proposed by the Secretary of State. It removes the board secretary as being responsible for collecting and filing papers for school board candidates and transfers that duty to the county auditor.
IASB is registered undecided on the bill, but we think this would be a welcome change to streamline the process of filing to run for the school board. The bill passed the House by a vote of 63-29 and was amended, so it has been sent back to the Senate for their consideration.
SF 2219—Exempt Absences for School-Sponsored Activities: The House amended this bill to require districts to adopt policy that grants students an exempt absence when students miss school for participation in a school-sponsored activity, program, competition, or project. Students must be allowed to make up the work they miss during these absences.
IASB is registered undecided on the bill. We think this isn’t necessary as Department of Education guidance already directs school districts to count students “present” when missing for these activities, so there is no need to exempt them from an absence. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 46-0 and the amended version passed the House by a vote of 85-8. The amendment sends the bill back to the Senate.
SF 2428—Addressing Violent and Disruptive Student Behavior: The House adopted a strikeafter amendment to this bill, which means they fully replaced the bill with their own.
They added language from a separate bill to direct the Department of Education to establish a pilot program in one rural and one urban school district that would create an attendance center to provide educational services, including special education services, to eligible students. These students would include special education students and students whose emotional or behavioral needs interfere with their ability to be successful in the regular classroom.
The districts chosen for the pilot program must be able to either fund it themselves, or the Department of Education must fund the pilot.
The bill establishes procedures and required policies for addressing both violent and nonviolent disruptions by students that lead a teacher to remove a student from the classroom.
Each attendance center must establish an oversight review committee that will develop a policy on when a student who has been removed from the classroom may be readmitted. The committee will be made up of two teachers selected by the other teachers in the building, and a staff member selected by the principal.
For a nonviolent disruption:
A teacher is authorized remove a student and put them under the principal or their designee’s supervision for at least 30 minutes.
A kindergarten through fifth grade student who is removed from a classroom can’t return until the teacher and principal meet to discuss the readmission.
A 6-12 student who is removed from a classroom can’t return until the teacher and principal to discuss the readmission, which, at the earliest, will be the next school day.
If a student is removed more than once, the teacher, principal, a guidance counselor, and the student’s parent will meet to establish a plan to address the student’s behavior.
For a violent disruption:
A teacher is authorized to remove a student and put them under the principal or their designee’s supervision.
A kindergarten through fifth grade student who is removed from a classroom can’t return until the teacher and principal meet to discuss the readmission.
A 6-12 student who is removed from a classroom can’t return until the teacher and principal to discuss the readmission, which, at the earliest, will be the next school day.
If a removal happens two or more times in a semester, the principal will assign the student either in or out-of-school suspension and recommend an alternative learning environment to the superintendent.
A nonviolent disruption can be: disorderly conduct, abusive or profane language, bullying, or repeatedly disruptive behavior. A violent disruption can be: injury, property damage, or assault.
If a student is removed from a classroom for assaulting the teacher and the teacher does not consent to the student returning, the student shall not be readmitted.
The second section to the bill relates to procedures following the removal of a student with an individualized education plan (IEP).
In the IEP meeting after a removal, the team must discuss:
Appropriateness of the student’s current educational programming.
If adjustments should be made to the IEP to address the behavior.
If the student’s current location or an alternative learning environment would best provide the student with a free appropriate public education.
Accommodations the student requires and whether those can be provided in the general education environment.
The impact providing special education services in the general education environment will have on the student and other students in the classroom.
Principals will be required to:
Carry out manifestation determination review meetings after a student is placed in a new learning environment.
Impose appropriate discipline according to school district policy and federal law.
Perform functional behavior assessments as needed.
Adjust behavioral intervention plans as needed.
After a nonviolent or violent disruption, the principal must make a mental health professional, guidance counselor, or behavioral interventionist available for a trauma debrief if the teacher requests it.
Teachers must be granted up to three days of leave following an injury as a result of a student’s violent disruption. A teacher may be granted more leave if they provide a doctor’s note.
A teacher may appeal to the school board a principal’s refusal to allow a teacher to remove a student or a principal’s readmission of a student.
A teacher can request a meeting of a student’s IEP team at any time. This can be denied by an administrator if they provide why federal law does not require the team to meet.
All teachers responsible for implementing a student’s IEP are required to read the IEP, so they know their responsibilities and the accommodations and supports that must be provided. Regular education teachers will provide written notice to the special education teacher that they have read the IEP. At least one paraeducator must attend all IEP meetings.
All district employees who are part of the IEP team will receive training related to least restrictive environment requirements under federal law.
All teachers will receive professional development that:
Supports serving students with disabilities.
Provides information on the requirements of providing a free appropriate public education, including the district’s responsibility to evaluate a student who may have a disability.
Outlines the supports and services through an IEP and how the teacher is responsible for implementing it.
IASB is registered undecided on the bill. It is a work in progress, and we appreciate ongoing conversations to ensure any new policy can work in school districts while protecting all students and teachers. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 45-0 and passed the House Education Committee.
HF 2591—Open Enrollment and Transfer Athletic Eligibility: This bill changes the period of time an open enrolled or transfer student must sit out before participating in athletics. Currently, students must sit out for 90 school days, but this bill changes it to 140 calendar days. The House amended the bill to allow 8th graders to participate in athletics.
IASB is registered undecided on the bill but understand the purpose is to account for school districts on a four-day school week. We do have concerns with the addition of 8th graders allowed to play varsity sports. The bill, as amended, passed the House by a vote of 92-0 and now returns to the Senate for their consideration.
HF 2676—Iowa’s “Make America Healthy Again” Proposal: This bill, originally proposed by the governor, includes several divisions impacting school districts. It has been significantly amended by the Senate to now include:
Division V: Prohibits school districts from serving meals that include certain dyes or ingredients as part of the district’s breakfast or lunch program. The ingredients are:
Blue dye 1
Blue dye 2
Green dye 3
Potassium bromate
Propylparaben
Red dye 40
Yellow dye 5
Yellow dye 6
Additionally, school districts could not sell products with these ingredients on the school campus, which would include vending machines. This would go into effect for the 2027–28 school year.
Division VIII: Limits on digital instruction, which includes lessons, assessments, or instructional activities, to 60 minutes per school day for kindergarten through 5th grade students. Districts will have to adopt a policy on technology use for these grades, which will include a list of digital platforms and applications used for instruction.
The Department of Education will convene a working group to study the impact of school- provided technology on cognitive function and academic performance of students in grades 6- 12.
Division IX: PE curriculum must include using the presidential physical fitness test to assess students. This will take effect when the federal government issues guidance on the administration of the fitness test.
IASB is registered undecided on the bill. We have some concern over districts being able to affordably source foods without the banned food dyes, but we appreciate that the Senate amendment removed many of our previous concerns related to PE requirements and a federal waiver for school food programs. The amended bill passed the Senate by a vote of 30-15 and returns to the House for their consideration.
SF 2231—Community-Based Provider Rules: This bill provides new guidelines for community-based providers of preschool and the school districts they partner with:
School districts must enter into a sharing agreement with a community provider if the community provider requests it.
The sharing agreement cannot limit how many students can attend preschool at the community provider.
School districts cannot make the community provider modify their standards for admission or educational programming.
School districts and the state cannot impose regulations on the community provider that aren’t necessary for the provider’s participation in the preschool program.
Community providers must be given the maximum amount of freedom to provide education for their students, consistent with state and federal law.
An amendment by the House ensures that community-based providers follow the same requirements as school districts when participating in the Statewide Voluntary Preschool Program.
A separate House amendment adds the language from another bill about protected free speech in schools. It outlines the protections that students have at school related to speech and expression. It prohibits school districts from discriminating against or punishing students for religious, political, or ideological speech and viewpoints. This includes during class, homework assignments, organizing clubs, and wearing clothes or accessories that display a message.
School districts would also be required to provide the U.S. Department of Education’s guidance on constitutionally protected prayer and religious expression to all employees and offer professional development on the topic.
Any individual or club organized by a student would be allowed to bring a civil action if they allege a violation of these protections.
IASB is registered against the bill. It doesn’t allow for school district choice in who to partner with to provide high-quality preschool. Additionally, we believe the protections added in the amendment already exist and are not being violated by schools. The bill adds language about these protections applying to “similarly situated students,” which would create a new standard for First Amendment protections. Currently the protections apply to the speech itself, rather than if the speech would be protected for similarly situated students. The bill passed the House by a vote of 63-25, so the amended version returns to the Senate for their consideration.
HF 2752—Teach Iowa Scholar: This bill makes changes to prioritize applicants for the Teach Iowa Scholar grant. 20% will be awarded to special education teachers and 50% will be awarded to teachers in rural school districts, which includes districts with enrollment less than 1,000 students.
IASB is registered in support of the bill. We know that special education and rural schools are two areas where the teacher shortage is especially noticed, so we hope these grants can help alleviate some of that shortage. The bill passed the House by a vote of 91-1.
SF 2365—Notice Requirements for Construction Contracts: This bill requires public entities, like a school district, to provide written notice to contractors and subcontractors within 14 days of accepting a final bid. There is no liability if a district does not comply.
IASB is registered undecided on the bill. We think contractors can already attend a board meeting or look at board meeting minutes to receive this information, but it is not a large burden on districts. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 45-0.
6000 Grand Ave., Ste. A
Des Moines, IA 50312
(515) 288-1991
© 2017–26 Iowa Association of School Boards®
15.3.2025.8