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
March 20 is close and with the second funnel deadline, we are hopeful that bills will fall off the list for consideration. Subcommittees began in earnest this week while both chambers also debated. The House has sent significantly more bills to the Senate that impact education.
Our time this week has been spent:
Working with legislators to amend bills to make them more palatable. Included on this list are the bills attempting to provide more protections for teachers against disruptive and/or violent student behavior and some policy guardrails on the requirement that all special education classrooms have cameras. I’m happy to note that we are making progress on the disruptive/violent student bills and were able to get the cameras bill pulled (for now) from the House debate list on Thursday.
Working to stop legislation promoted by the bankers that would limit your access to ISJIT. For the third time it was on the House debate list, and for the third time, we were successful in getting it pulled.
Having ongoing conversations with the governor’s office on her version of property tax reform as it relates to the accelerated diversion of SAVE monies to property tax relief. The governor has proposed a four-year timeline, dedicating 30% of those funds to reducing the additional levy rate, replacing local property tax dollars with SAVE funds.
The REC met on March 12 but didn’t significantly change their December estimates. Nonetheless, you know money is tight when Republicans propose taxing the managed care organizations and private insurance companies to pay for the shortfall in Medicaid.
While the Senate Ways and Means Committee passed Senator Dawson’s property tax relief bill, it appears that most negotiation is taking place between the House and the governor. Their bills are much closer and are largely preferred by most (except cities and counties).
Under the Golden Dome Video
Stay tuned for next week's Under the Golden Dome video following the second funnel deadline!
Advocacy Action of the Week
Contact your representatives and tell them to vote no on HF 2681, which would require school districts to install cameras in special education classrooms. While the policy may be a good idea, the financial impact to districts is large and somewhat unknown. Based on the original bill, the legislative services agency estimates a $21 million dollar cost to districts. The amendment filed would require storage for up to 90 days, which will further increase the cost to districts.
Districts would not only have to install and maintain the cameras, but they would have to store the video recordings for 90 days, which adds to the cost. Districts simply don’t have the money to be able to implement this requirement.
You can find your legislators here.
SAVE Revenue Loss Tool
Governor Reynolds has released her property tax proposal. The bill is a fairly 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). Her proposal intends to increase the amount of SAVE revenue going to PTER to 30% by 2030. For comparison, 7% of SAVE revenue currently goes into PTER. To see the impact of this proposed legislation on your district, use our new SAVE Revenue Loss Tool.
Bills on the Move
SF 2404—Pilot Program for Alternative Attendance Centers: This bill would 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 bill was amended on the floor to remove the problematic funding source and instead states that the districts chosen for the pilot program must be able to either fund it themselves, or the Department of Education must fund the pilot.
IASB is registered undecided on the bill. We appreciate the change to the funding source. The bill, as amended, passed the Senate by a vote of 32-13.
SF 2428—Addressing Violent and Disruptive Student Behavior: This is the Senate’s proposal to address student behavior issues. The first section of the bill requires school districts to adopt policies that:
Create an oversight review committee at each attendance center, made up of two teachers selected by the other teachers in the building, and a staff member selected by the principal.
Authorize a teacher to remove a student for a nonviolent disruption and put the student under the principal or their designee’s supervision for at least 30 minutes.
Prevent the principal from returning the student to the classroom without the teacher’s consent.
The principal must inform the teacher of the student’s discipline.
If a student is removed more than once in a school year, the teacher, principal, guidance counselor, parent, and student will have a meeting to discuss the student’s behavior and establish a behavioral plan to correct it, including an alternative learning environment.
Principal must determine if a violent disruption that required removal warrants suspension, expulsion, or an alternative learning environment.
If the teacher requests it, a guidance counselor, mental health professional, or behavioral interventionist must be made available to address the immediate trauma experienced by the class as a result of another student’s behavior.
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.
The second section to the bill relates to procedures following a disruption by a student with an individualized education plan. Principals are required to:
Carry out manifestation determination review meetings after a student is placed in a new learning environment.
Impose discipline according to policy if a student’s disruption is determined not to be a manifestation of their disability.
Perform functional behavior assessments as needed.
Adjust behavioral intervention plans as needed.
If a teacher removes a student with an IEP from their classroom, they will be required to:
- Ensure proper documentation is provided to the student’s IEP team, which includes:
Date and time of the removal.
Actions of the student before, during and after the removal.
Actions of the school district employees before, during, and after the removal.
Description of the less restrictive means attempted as an alternative to removal.
Future approaches to the student’s behavior.
Time and manner in which the school district notified the parents of the removal.
- Participate in the student’s next IEP meeting and have the opportunity to provide suggestions for changing the student’s IEP
A student’s IEP team is required to meet “expeditiously” after the student’s removal from the classroom to determine if an alternative educational location is best for the student.
The IEP team must discuss:
Whether the student’s disability is such that their education cannot be achieved satisfactorily in regular classes.
Appropriateness of the student’s current educational programming.
If adjustments should be made to the IEP to address the disruptions.
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.
After considering least restrictive environment requirements, the team may determine the student’s education needs cannot be achieved in regular classes. The student must be placed in an alternative learning environment to best suit the student’s needs.
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.
HF 2670—Summative Assessment Changes, Curriculum Changes: This bill would add social studies to the summative assessment requirements. It would be administered in 8th and 10th grades.
It would make small changes to the health curriculum requirements, making instruction on physical fitness, food and nutrition, and personal health required. The bill also removes the prescriptive personal finance literacy curriculum requirements from code. The half unit of personal finance is still required.
IASB is registered undecided on the bill. The changes are not overly burdensome, and we appreciate the removal of personal finance literacy curriculum in the code. The bill passed the House by a vote of 59-33.
HF 2623—School District Elections: This bill would move school board elections to even-numbered years, instead of their current odd-numbered years. It provides for transition time for current board members who may be affected by the change.
IASB is registered against the bill because we hope to keep school board elections as non-partisan as possible, which is much harder when the races are on the same ballot as the general election. The bill passed the House by a vote of 54-38.
HF 2538—Addressing Violent and Disruptive Students: This bill attempts to provide a process for instances of violent or disruptive student behavior. The bill addresses “disorderly conduct” by students which includes violence or threats of violence but is also defined as “disturbs the peace, order, or discipline within the classroom.” The bill was amended on the House floor, with some good and some less than ideal additions:
A teacher would be allowed to remove a student from their classroom for disorderly conduct, threatening another student or teacher, or using abusive or profane language.
Students in grades K–5 won’t be allowed back into the teacher’s classroom until the principal and teacher meet to discuss readmission of the student.
Students in grades 6-12 won’t be readmitted until the next school day and after the principal and teacher meet to discuss readmission of the student.
If disciplinary action is determined to be necessary by the principal, they will provide written and electronic notice of that discipline to the student’s parent or guardian.
If a student is removed two or more times in a semester, the principal will discipline the student through in or out-of-school suspension or recommending an alternative learning environment.
If the student’s behavior was severe, and it’s requested by the teacher, the principal must impose the maximum punishment allowed by the district’s policy.
Each attendance will have an oversight review committee to develop a policy that establishes when a student can return to the classroom after being removed by a teacher. The committee will include two teachers and a staff member chosen by the principal.
Establishes a process for students with an individualized education program (IEP):
At the IEP meeting after a student is removed from the classroom, all of the following will participate: the teacher who removed the student, any teacher who provides classroom instruction to the student, and other employees, like a bus driver or paraeducator, who were involved in the student being removed.
The IEP team will discuss the appropriateness of the student’s current educational programming, whether adjustments need to be made to the IEP, whether the current placement or an alternative learning environment would best provide the student with a free appropriate education.
Teachers could appeal the following to the school board:
Principal’s refusal to allow the teacher to remove a student.
A student being readmitted to the classroom before they are allowed.
Districts cannot take retaliatory action if a teacher exercises their appeal rights. Penalties would apply if that happens, including the district being liable for damages equal to three times the annual wages of the teacher.
Teachers will be granted a leave of absence for physical or mental recovery as a result of a student’s disorderly conduct for up to five days. After that, a doctor’s note will be required for additional leave.
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, but we appreciate the legislature continuing to work toward a proposal that is both feasible and effective for districts. The bill passed the House by a vote of 73-17.
SF 2299—Payment for Failed Concurrent Enrollment Course: This bill would require a student or their parent to pay the school district the amount they spent on a concurrent enrollment course if the student fails the course if the school district requests it.
IASB is registered undecided on the bill. We have concerns that this may dissuade students from enrolling in these courses but understand there should be accountability when students decide to take a community college class. It passed the Senate by a vote of 32-16 and passed the House Education Committee.
SF 2320—Require In-Person Concurrent Enrollment: This bill would require a student that is enrolled in a concurrent enrollment course to take the in-person option if it is available, rather than the online version. It allows the superintendent to authorize a student to take the online version if necessary.
IASB is undecided on the bill. We appreciate the local flexibility to allow students to take the online course if needed. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 44-0 and passed the House Education Committee.
HF 2493—Five-Year-Old Eligibility for Statewide Voluntary Preschool Program (SWVPP): This bill would allow a five-year-old, with a birthday between March 15 and September 15 of the school year in which they would be five, to enroll in preschool through the SWVPP. If the child attended preschool as a four-year-old and was counted for state, they would not be counted for state funding purposes as a five-year-old.
IASB is registered undecided on the bill. We think the SWVPP should prioritize four-year-olds but understand the need for some five-year-olds to have another year before kindergarten that isn’t available if a district doesn’t have a transitional kindergarten program. The bill passed the House by a vote of 88-2 and passed the Senate Education Committee.
SF 2218—Verification of Employee Identity and Authorization to Work: The bill would require the Board of Educational Examiners (BOEE) to verify that an applicant for initial licensure is legally authorized to work in the U.S. Additionally, school districts must verify that employees are legally authorized to work in the U.S.
IASB is registered undecided on the bill. We appreciate the Senate amending the bill to the current “authorized to work” rather than the original “lawful presence” language, as this is a significant difference when referring to employment. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 47-0 and passed the House Education Committee.
6000 Grand Ave., Ste. A
Des Moines, IA 50312
(515) 288-1991
© 2017–26 Iowa Association of School Boards®
15.3.2025.8