Everything you need to know for the 2025 budget session
Hoosier lawmakers enter 2025 with a full education policy agenda – and likely not a ton of new money to spend.
We unpacked the situation expected for the next biennial budget in our last issue, along with expectations for funding and priority requests from the Indiana Department of Education.
The gist – state budget writers have been preaching the motto of “tightening the belt” in this year’s budget. The December revenue forecast, however, leaves budget drafters cautiously optimistic about the next budget. The forecast confirms that the next budget will be tighter than in the last few years – projecting 3.0% growth in fiscal year 2026, and essentially a flatline in FY 2027 with only .03% growth projected.
There won’t be a lot of wiggle room to increase spending or add new expenditures for K-12 programs, keeping in mind the mega shortfall in the Medicaid budget, and the end of federal pandemic funding that supported various education programs. There is also inflation to think about.
So, what’s on the agenda for 2025?
The headliner: Republican leaders, in the executive and legislative branches, are set on expanding school vouchers, despite expected budget constraints. You can also expect to see some priority placed on discussions surrounding teacher pay.
Additionally, deregulation will emerge in the form of a large bill filed by House Committee on Education Chair Bob Behning (R) of Indianapolis. IDOE is also working on a new accountability framework.
Other odds and ends include legislation relating to charter schools, referenda, property taxes, absenteeism, and of course, cursive writing. We also may see a discussion return on transgender athletes – this time at the collegiate level.
As we’re just days away from the official start on January 8, we fully expect this long session to be just that – long – and packed with new education policies to navigate.
Let’s get into it.
Universal Vouchers Almost Guaranteed
Despite concerns about a tighter state budget, Republican lawmakers and Governor-elect Mike Braun (R) are fully committed to expanding Indiana’s school voucher program.
The Choice Scholarship program is already accessible to nearly all Indiana families, with an income limit set at more than $200,000. The governor-elect’s top 2025 education platform plank calls for elimination of income requirements and making access universal, with legislative leaders supporting this plan.
At this point, universal vouchers are almost a given for lawmakers to pass, with the call from the incoming governor, strong backing from majority legislative leaders, and growing acceptance from the public.
Rep. Behning, who played a large role in creating the state voucher program, tells us this issue will be a top priority on the House Republican Caucus agenda.
“House Republicans haven’t necessarily released an agenda, but I guarantee you, if, when and if we do that, it would be on it,” Behning confides.
Democrats, however, oppose lifting income limits on the programs. Rep. Ed DeLaney (D) of Indianapolis, who noted last month at the Dentons Legislative Conference that he attended Catholic school, argues the state funding private school for everyone is not necessary.
“We didn’t need, didn’t want, didn’t use public money. So that’s all nonsense,” Rep. DeLaney says of his family attending private schools. He continues, “The majority of people getting vouchers were not proper, were not dependent on the state, and we just handed it to them.”
The majority of students who receive school vouchers in Indiana already attended private schools, according to the latest Indiana Department of Education Choice Scholarship Annual Report, meaning they would not have used state money otherwise. However, if those students chose to attend public school, IDOE notes in its report that it would cost the state more money. Many opponents of expanding vouchers argue, including Rep. DeLaney, that lawmakers have lost the original purpose of the voucher programs – to provide low income families with finances to attend a better school.
“I’m grateful for some, some of our people now can take money that they would have spent on high school or grammar school, they’ll spend it on college, or they’ll buy a bigger house, or they’ll buy a car,” Rep. DeLaney points out at LegCon. “Isn’t that nice? That’s not what the purpose of choice is.”
Sen. Andrea Hunley (D) of Indianapolis also at LegCon advocated that the state should put more of its focus on traditional public schools . . . which she notes 92% of students in the state attend. She also believes there isn’t enough oversight of voucher schools, especially since they don’t accept all students like public schools are required to do.
“These schools that are accepting vouchers, that are private schools but are getting our tax dollars, can turn away students for a variety of reasons. And we’re not monitoring that,” Sen. Hunley, a former public school principal, asserts.
In response to some of his Democratic colleagues’ criticism of vouchers at LegCon, Rep. Behning asserts, “I’m not going to apologize that our caucus will be very supportive of universal vouchers.” He asserts, “I think letting parents make that choice as to what’s best for their son or daughter is the best way to move forward.”
Now, how the voucher expansion will take shape in the budget will be one to watch, especially if Sen. Ryan Mishler (R) of Mishawaka reintroduces his 2024 bill to overhaul the Choice Scholarship program and combine it into one program with Education Scholarship Accounts and Career Scholarship Accounts. The Senate Committee on Appropriation chair’s proposal would replace the Choice Scholarship with direct funding for families to purchase educational services.
The effort was presented last year alongside State Treasurer Daniel Elliott (R), whose office would oversee this new program, taking the voucher responsibility away from IDOE. Sen. Mishler’s proposal, though it was presented as a possible preview of 2025 budget discussions, was met with some skepticism – even from school choice advocates who were uneasy about the state just abandoning its existing voucher program. They would prefer expanding ESAs alongside the existing voucher program.
While Sen. Mishler does hold a powerful position in crafting the next state budget – don’t hold your breath on his school choice overhaul becoming law next year.
Senate Committee on Education and Career Development Chair Jeff Raatz (R) of Richmond tells us he’s not sure if Sen. Mishler will bring it up again. He notes that given it was a big overhaul proposal, if lawmakers were planning on adopting it, they likely would have already begun laying the groundwork, which he hasn’t heard of happening. “I think we would be gearing up for something like that if it was going to pop back up again,” Sen. Raatz tells us.
On the proposal from last year, Sen. Raatz didn’t reveal much of his thoughts but says he “remembers it well” recalling, “Initially, I was concerned with the treasurer being part of this equation and handling of the funds, if it was the right place to do so, and I think it’s working fine the way that it is.”
He adds, though, “Sen. Mishler, I’m not certain. He could bring something up, I suppose. That’s my answer.”
Speaking of the treasurer’s office . . . you will likely hear some calls for expansions of the ESA and CSA programs, which both met capacity last year for the first time.
Deregulation and Accountability Framework
Expect to see some sweeping deregulation bills, helmed by Rep. Behning, likely over the next few sessions.
Behning describes the large deregulation bill he plans to carry this year as the beginning of a “multi-year process” that will involve a thorough review of Title 20, the section of the Indiana Code governing education. The goal, he says, is to reduce administrative mandates and provide more flexibility for local decision-making.
“It will be probably a several-year process to go through Title 20 totally, but I would anticipate probably a three-year process,” Behning, the longest-serving House Republican, explains.
The lawmaker indicates that the deregulation effort will draw on data and language from previous legislation, HEA 1243-2024, which focused on data reduction. Rep. Behning said the new bill will target “low and lower hanging fruit,” such as removing language that requires state permission for certain actions.
“If you may do it, you don’t need our permission to do it,” Behning details. “There’s going to be some things in it . . . we either are maybe repealing them or pushing it down to a local level for them to make the decisions whether or not they want to implement.”
“I can see it being somewhat challenging,” Behning recognizes in taking on Title 20. He adds, “but at the same time, I think a lot of people would agree it’s necessary, and the Speaker’s super-excited about it.”
Rep. Behning also plans to carry legislation for the Indiana Department of Education to align with the department’s new accountability framework for schools.
We’ve been telling you that the new draft of the accountability framework is expected to first come before the State Board of Education as early as next week. From our understanding, this new framework will be a simpler version of the A-F grading accountability system the state previously used. The new framework will align with the new high school diploma, to hold accountable for outcomes surrounding that.
Behning and Raatz have both met with IDOE officials to review the latest drafts. Their input: Keep it simple.
“I have suggested it needs to be simple, but fair and something that parents can easily digest,” Behning divulges.
Sen. Raatz similarly ponders, “What’s the most simplistic way that folks can look at it and really understand what’s my school doing?”
The Senate education chair also acknowledges the challenges of getting the accountability system right, particularly when it comes to balancing academic outcomes and the various pathways available to students under the new diploma structure. “Those are all things that should be on the table to determine how school districts really functioning,” Sen. Raatz notes.
With that in mind, we’ve been telling you to expect to see lawmakers incentivize schools to produce high school graduates with the new three seals on the diploma – which are focused on preparing students for enrollment, employment, or enlistment.
Secretary of Education Katie Jenner tells us that is one priority she will push for during session to add the diploma with the seals to the funding formula. Such a system already exists in the state school funding formula, where schools can already earn incentives from many of the components in the seals, such as if a particular number of students earn an associate’s degree while in high school.
Teacher Pay Raises?
There is a consensus among policymakers, the executive branch, and education advocates that Indiana’s teachers deserve a pay raise . . . but exactly how much that should be is still up in the air.
With the general message of this budget being “tightening our belts,” there is again, not a lot of wiggle room. So, how much of a pay raise teachers could receive in the next biennium is unclear, and lawmakers may have to get creative in ways to increase their compensation.
Governor-elect Braun lists increasing teacher pay as one of his top priorities in his seven-tier education policy agenda. Although he hasn’t proposed a specific minimum salary, he has criticized the proposal from his 2024 gubernatorial opponent, Jennifer McCormick (D), to raise the minimum pay to $60,000, calling it insufficient. He has suggested that schools should allocate more classroom funding to salaries instead of facilities and overhead costs.
A top priority of Dr. Jenner’s heading into session is advocating for teacher pay increases as well. However, she also hasn’t revealed what she believes would be a good pay increase.
Meanwhile, Indiana State Teachers Association officials are advocating for salaries to keep pace with inflation to address what they describe as a pay gap with other professions. The association hasn’t picked a specific dollar amount it would like to see as a minimum pay.
Rep. Behning has some ideas, he tells your favorite education newsletter. He mentions discussions to repurpose state Teacher Appreciation Grants (TAG) to better address shortages.
“The TAG suggestions or proposals I would move would be to create and provide a stipend for shortage areas so that we can actually pay them more money, really, what I call ‘supplemental pay’,” Behning describes.
However, he acknowledges that teacher pay as a whole is more of a budget decision than a policy decision – meaning it is more up to budget writers on the House Committee on Ways and Means than it is to the House Committee on Education.
“Most of my committee would strongly advocate teachers get paid more,” Behning notes. “I mean, there’s some strategies you can do that would, could increase teacher pay if we looked at some system changes potentially.”
Charter School Issues May Take Some Spotlight
In addition to voucher discussions, charter schools will likely also be at the forefront this session.
We told you in our December 6 issue that the newly formed Indiana Charter Innovation Center will heavily advocate for charters to get a share of property tax dollars this session Founded by Scott Bess, a longtime charter advocate (and member of the Indiana State Board of Education), the center seeks to address the need for a centralized support system for charter schools, providing services and creating communities of practice.
Charter schools, which are publicly funded but privately managed, have long sought a share of local property tax dollars.
State funding for charter schools has slightly increased, by about 0.4 percentage points over the past 14 years, but overall tuition support for all publicly funded schools has decreased. And, bearing in mind that budget writers will have little room for large budget increases this next biennium, we likely will see some efforts to try to share the wealth locally for charter schools.
Rep. Behning confirms that lawmakers are likely to introduce an “incentive” bill that would enable charter schools to share in local property tax revenue.
“I know for a fact that, yes, there will be an incentive likely to start some language with dealing with revenue sharing, specifically property taxes, with charters,” Behning tells us.
Such a measure is likely to start in the Senate, he reveals, but he didn’t know who would carry it. Sen. Raatz didn’t share details with us on such legislation.
We could see Sen. Linda Rogers (R) of Granger carry the bill, as she carried the last significant legislation to shift some property tax revenue to charters. You may recall Sen. Rogers’ SEA 391-2023, which requires public school districts in Marion County, Lake County, St. Joseph County, and Vanderburgh County to share a certain amount of property tax revenue from operating referenda with charter schools within the district’s boundaries.
Sen. Rogers this past session tried to expand that law to all 92 counties in the state . . . but she pulled back her effort in favor of allowing breathing room to see how the referenda-sharing worked out in the four original covered counties. We could see that language return this year, but there still hasn’t been a lot of time to quite see how referenda-sharing works out. Two school districts, MSD Pike Township and Lake Station Community School Corporation, both this year passed referenda under which they will have to share with charters in their districts.
In addition to the property tax revenue sharing proposal, Behning also mentions that lawmakers may consider incentives to address transportation challenges faced by charter schools.
This comes from IDOE’s transportation feasibility student and pilot program report sent to the General Assembly under HEA 1380-2024. IDOE’s pilot program suggests options including public-private partnerships, a centralized transportation authority, and ride-share options. Expect to see some details from that report find their way into legislation this year.
“I think there you may see some language that would suggest that we need to figure out a way to incentivize that in several communities,” Rep. Behning explains of the proposals.
A big landscape shift could come for charters and traditional public schools under a bill drafted by Rep. Jake Teshka (R) of North Liberty, who sits on the House education panel.
Rep. Teshka’s HB 1136, which is co-authored by House Committee on Ways and Means Chair Jeff Thompson (R) of Lizton, proposes that if more than 50% of students within a traditional public school corporation’s boundaries are enrolled in schools not operated by the corporation as of the 2024 fall count date, the corporation must be dissolved, and its public schools will transition to charter schools.
A Legislative Services Agency fiscal analysis estimates that five school corporations, notably including Indianapolis Public Schools, would be dissolved under HB 1136, and 68 schools would transition to charter schools by FY 2029. Also on the list is the Gary Community School Corporation, which just left state control last summer. Union School Corporation, Tri-Township Consolidated School Corporation, and Cannelton City Schools would also be dissolved under this measure. Of the 68 schools estimated to transition to charters, IPS comprises the bulk of those with 50 schools.
This bill would establish a new seven-member governing board to oversee the transition and operation of these schools. The new school boards would assume additional responsibilities, including recruiting high-performing charter school organizers to take over the operations of the transitioning schools. The bill would also prohibit the impacted schools from imposing new or extending old referendum tax levies – which could decrease revenue for these schools.
Relevant to this proposal is the latest fall 2024 enrollment numbers released by IDOE at the end of the year. Enrollment in charter schools has increased, especially in Marion County.
Well more than half (61%) of public school students within IPS boundaries now attend a charter or innovation school, per the Mind Trust CEO Brandon Brown, who tweeted the numbers last month. He adds, “Indy charters increased their enrollment by almost 1,400 students compared to last year. Remarkable.”
Scott Bess also chimed in, boasting, “Indy’s charter sector is vibrant and growing, but there are still 1,000s of students in schools that are not working well for them (maybe for others, but not for them). At @INCharterInno, we are working hard to expand options across the city.”
Changes to Property Taxes and Referenda
Gov.-elect Braun’s priorities include capping property tax increases at 2.0% for some residents and 3.0% for others, and limiting new property tax referendums to general elections instead of primaries. These proposals could impact funding for traditional public and some charter schools.
Republican legislative leaders are likely going to prioritize property tax relief in some form . . . though they haven’t said if they will follow Braun’s directive, at least not exactly. There are concerns about the potential effects on local government agencies, including school districts that rely on property taxes to supplement state aid. Expect to hear pushback from local governments and school districts if lawmakers come forward with a proposal that won’t supplement potential local dollars lost.
Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers argue that increasing state funding could reduce the need for districts to seek referenda. Cutting property tax revenue could further increase the need to seek referenda as well, which may not fare well with voters who have been asking for some kind of relief.
Speaking of referenda, you may recall another part of Gov.-elect Braun’s property tax proposal deals with referenda. The Braun Administration poses mandating referenda to be placed on ballots only during general elections in even years – when voter turnout is generally higher. Referenda would also be subject to tax bill growth caps.
Rep. Behning drafted a bill offering that same proposal last session, which didn’t make it very far – passing the House with significant amendments to then not see the light of day in the Senate. He failed to get his measure through because it was met with significant pushback from all education stakeholder groups like the Indiana School Boards Association, who argue that boxing schools that want to pass a referendum into a specific election time frame takes away budget flexibility.
Looking back, Behning tells us he felt a little as if he was alone “on an island” in his proposal last year, as it failed to gain much support. But he’s bringing it back this session, and he feels a little more momentum this time with the new governor’s backing.
He hopes to work better with the stakeholder groups to move a measure forward this year. One area he may be able to use to negotiate is a secondary part of the bill that could amend ballot question language requirements to be easier to read.
We’ve been telling you in these pages that schools for the past three years have complained about ballot language being “misleading” and confusing to voters in particular since lawmakers changed referendum language requirements in 2021, requiring the average percentage of taxes to be paid to the schools to be placed on the question. The concern has been that voters likely see that percentage and think their individual taxes will increase by a lot more than what is actually being proposed. Some districts that lost their referendum bids recently blame the required question wording for contributing to the defeats.
Rep. Behning agrees that ballot question language has grown “very confusing,’ and that simplifying the language and presentation could lead to better-informed voter decisions.
The education panel chair also mentions the possibility of prohibiting “rollovers,” where a failed referendum is placed on the ballot again the following year. He believes that this practice can be misleading, as voters may not realize that approving the measure would result in a tax increase.
Leising, Becker, Glick Team Up on Education Proposals
Teaming up on a few education bills are Sens. Jean Leising (R) of Oldenburg, Sue Glick (R) of LaGrange, and Vaneta Becker (R) of Evansville. First, both Sens. Glick and Becker are signed on as authors on Sen. Leising’s perennial cursive writing bill, filed as SB 35 this session. All three are members of the Baby Boom generation who grew up earning cursive in schools.
The trio also author a revival of a Leising measure from last session to require school districts to ensure that at least 60% of a school counselor’s work is dedicated to counseling. The measure failed to progress through the House last year, though we’ve heard from Sen. Raatz that he’s coming into 2025 with a stronger backing of Sen. Leising’s counselor proposal – with a few tweaks. Whether that will take shape in the form of his own bill or a rework of Leising’s remains to be seen.
Related to this bill particularly, Sen. Raatz mentions that he’s considering including some language allowing schools to hire some outside help to perform some of the assignments often thrust upon counselors, such as lunch duty.
In addition, Sen. Raatz reveals to us that he plans to further enhance the Indiana Career Coaching program with legislation this year, as a further means of taking some work off school counselors’ plates and perhaps address counselor shortages.
The senator explains that the state has had about a year of experience with the career coaching initiative and is now consulting with stakeholders to determine the next steps. The focus is on improving the program, moving from “good” to “better” and eventually “best,” with continuing funding being a key factor.
“We’ll continue to move forward with that,” Sen. Raatz says, noting the goal is to help students understand their motivations and interests, which “works well with the new diploma structure.”
Another effort we’ve previously reported from the Leising-Glick-Becker trio deals with the literacy endorsement requirements. Likely in the same fashion as the cursive writing bill, we’re hearing leaders don’t have much interest in this legislation either. SB 34 proposes lowering the professional development hours for teachers to earn the endorsement to teach the science of reading from 80 to 40 and removing the written examination requirement starting July 1, 2027.
Last spring, dozens of teachers protested before the State Board of Education over the literacy endorsement requirements, expressing concerns about the workload, the difficulty of getting into cohorts to obtain the endorsement, and what they called the unnecessary requirement to complete the PRAXIS exam at the end of the training. Many argued that PRAXIS is difficult for teachers to pass on the first try, adding unnecessary stress.
Both Raatz and Behning indicate they do not support removing the requirement in law to show mastery of the science of reading material to earn the endorsement. Chair Behning notes that data on the pass rate on PRAXIS shows it’s really not that much of a hinderance. IDOE last month released the numbers showing that PRAXIS for the early literacy endorsement has a 92% pass rate.
Ultimately, both education committee chairs tell us as well they believe teachers need to exhibit they learned the science of reading material in some form. “Frankly, we know that we want to make sure teachers understand, as opposed to press play and walk away,” Rep. Behning asserts.
Sen. Raatz echoes, “When you go prepare for your driving exam, you have to study and you have to pass the exam. Is it demeaning to somebody that they have to take the exam?” He continues, “I will not support a bill that would eliminate the test. If you learn something, you need to go through the process to see if you learned it or not.”
What’s Happening with Chronic Absenteeism?
In 2024, lawmakers passed SEA 282-2024 attempting to address truancy in grades K-6, by requiring school districts take a tougher stance on student truancy. Schools are required to set up attendance conferences with at-risk students and alert local prosecutors of truant students.
Lawmakers studied the issue further during the interim, and returned with some recommendations . . . though most were not direct policy proposals, as we reported in our November 8 issue last year.
Rep. Behning reveals that he plans to introduce a bill that would “memorialize” the recommendations from the summer study committee on chronic absenteeism. A central focus of the legislation will be to better define the distinction between excused and unexcused absences and prohibit schools from suspending students who are chronically absent or habitual truants.
Additionally, the bill would seek to extend the timeline for schools to set up attendance conferences with parents and students, increasing it from the current 5-day window to 10 days. Behning believes this change will provide schools with more flexibility and time to address the issue.
The legislation will direct IDOE to improve the data collection and reporting around chronic absenteeism by better defining “excused” versus “unexcused” absences and what qualifies for each. Currently, the largest category used is “other,” which Behning believes “doesn’t really tell us anything.” “I think data helps inform policy decisions,” Rep. Behning observes.
As far as directly addressing absenteeism rates in older students, which increases greatly when a student reaches 11th and 12th grades, Rep. Behning suggests that the state’s efforts to overhaul the high school experience may play a role in addressing chronic absenteeism, by making education more relevant and engaging for students.
Secretary Jenner at IDOE has also expressed hope that the new diploma will be a big part of solving absenteeism in high school.
Essentially, you shouldn’t expect too much direct policy from this session on addressing absenteeism, especially for older students . . . at least not until we see how the diploma affects attendance rates in a few years.
What to Expect for Higher Education
There may be another battle brewing between lawmakers and state higher education institutions – potentially at the same level as last year’s debate on tenure and “intellectual diversity.”
Rep. Michelle Davis (R) of Whiteland is attempting an expansion of her 2022 law banning transgender girls from joining female sports teams in K-12 schools. HB 1041 (which is coincidentally the same bill number from 2022!) would extend the law’s application to collegiate sports. The Davis measure would require schools, including state higher educational institutions, private institutions, and certain athletic associations that compete against state schools to designate sports teams as male, female, or coeducational. Male students, based on their biological sex at birth, would then be prohibited from participating in the female-designated sports teams.
The bill also would mandate that out-of-state teams notify Indiana schools if they allow male students to compete in female sports.
You likely recall the law passed in 2022 was vetoed by Governor Eric Holcomb (R), who said there was no current problem in Indiana and that the Indiana High School Athletic Association already had a policy in place to ensure fair competition. The veto was quickly overturned by the legislature.
Should this latest expansion make it to the governor’s desk, don’t expect a repeat of 2022. Governor-elect Mike Braun (R) is a strong supporter of the current law, and he also supports strengthening and expanding it, per his education agenda.
Does the incoming governor’s support carry weight to move this bill through? Likely. But, don’t expect the state universities and students to take it lightly. The 2022 bill attracted swarms of protestors to the State House, mostly parents and students, and it also drew a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union, which was dismissed in 2023.
Higher education officials are keenly aware (and perhaps annoyed) of lawmakers’ latest efforts to meddle more in their business – see the outrage sparked from last year’s SEA 202 tenure legislation, or the move in 2023 to prohibit Indiana University from using state dollars on the Kinsey Institute. So, should HB 1041 get some airtime in committee this year, don’t expect it to be a quiet hearing (and you can count on Democrats to loudly complain about a reprise of the “culture wars” diverting attention from the real needs of the state).
As far as other higher education-related legislation, Rep. Behning and Sen. Raatz share they haven’t heard from members about any SEA 202-like measures this time around.
Now, a key area to watch will be how much of a cut state colleges and universities will get in the budget – especially for capital projects. With little wiggle room in the next biennium, some institutions may not get everything they asked for. While you may recall we told you in October the Indiana Commission for Higher Education recommends the state fund all seven institutions’ priority projects (most of which are rehabilitation projects), the two bigger schools in the state, Indiana University and Ivy Tech Community College, complained that they don’t receive as fair a share of capital funding – they have more campuses and buildings, so they have a greater need for construction financing.
A Return of “Divisive Concepts” Legislation?
Governor-elect Braun in his education policy agenda additionally wants to “develop institutional safeguards against divisive, non-curricular materials like Critical Race Theory and gender identity from being taught in our public schools.”
With that, could we see a return of some of the 2022 “divisive concepts” legislation that you may recall gained some not-so-positive attention? We’re not sure how much of an appetite legislative leaders have to take a swing at such measures again . . . but a call for action from the governor does carry weight.
To recap, both the House and Senate in 2022 brought forth proposals to give more direct parental oversight over curriculum taught in the classroom and restrict how teachers could teach so-called “divisive concepts,” such as race. The House passed its version to much public protest and backlash, while the Senate ended up killing its proposal (and later the House’s too) after gaining some not-so-great national attention regarding a discussion in committee about teaching Nazism impartially.
So, will we see those again with the Braun Administration at the helm (with a lieutenant governor also known for branding himself as fighting “wokeness” in schools)? The answer: Maybe? No? Rep. Behning and Sen. Raatz did not know during our discussions with them if any lawmakers planned to file bills in their committees on the issue.
“I’m not a proponent necessarily,” Sen. Raatz observes. “My answer has been always that if, as young people, if we were taught and example to treat others the way you want to be treated, we don’t have to talk about anything else.”
If you’re a frequent reader of this newsletter, you know anyone in the legislature can file any bill they want, so time will tell.
As always … we’re heading into January 8 with hopes high for a smooth session – keeping an eye on how lawmakers handle dealing with a less-fruitful budget than in recent years and where these proposals land in the final hours after the mid-April revenue update.
Check back with us in late April for the report card.