Meeting Public Comments

Names and comments are public records. Remaining information is considered a confidential record.

Comments Submitted:

02-11-2026

Caleb Bonjour [Gladbrook-Reinbeck CSD]

I respectfully oppose HSB 683. Required PE Courses While physical activity and student engagement are critical, this bill significantly limits local flexibility and student choice. Requiring daily PE for grades 18 and additional activity minutes that cannot include PE will force districts to hire additional staff and restructure schedules, diverting scarce resources from academic and careerfocused opportunities.It also eliminates practical optouts for highly involved students who already meet or exceed activity requirements through multiple sports or workbased learning. Mandating participation in at least one cocurricular or extracurricular activity as a condition of graduation further restricts student autonomy and may penalize students balancing employment, family responsibilities, or other commitments.Local districts are best positioned to design balanced schedules that meet student needs without unfunded mandates.

02-11-2026

Caleb Bonjour [Gladbrook-Reinbeck CSD]

HSB 714 Iowas social studies standards were just recently revised through a thoughtful process led by the Department of Education with educator and stakeholder input. That process worked as designed. Legislating specific standards and instructional details sets a concerning precedent and risks turning learning standards into a political cycle rather than a professional one.This bill would require districts and teachers to revisit curriculum maps, pacing guides, assessments, and professional development they just completed. That means significant additional time, retraining, and planningat a moment when educators plates are already full.We should allow the Department of Education and local districts to continue leading standards work collaboratively and professionally, without layering on new mandates so soon after major revisions.

02-11-2026

Caleb Bonjour [Gladbrook-Reinbeck CSD]

I respectfully raise concerns regarding HSB 682. While there is no place in our schools or profession for rhetoric that celebrates violence, this bill raises significant constitutional questionsparticularly around First Amendment protections and the retroactive application of licensure consequences.Over the past year, several districts have faced legal challenges when attempting to discipline employees for offcampus or online speech, with some resulting in costly settlements. Expanding mandatory revocation standards could increase litigation, legal fees, and financial risk for districts and taxpayers.These complex situations are best addressed locally, with school boards working alongside legal counsel to evaluate context, constitutional boundaries, and appropriate disciplinary action. A onesizefitsall statutory mandate may unintentionally create more legal exposure than clarity.

02-11-2026

Caleb Bonjour [Gladbrook-Reinbeck CSD]

I support the intent of HSB 610. Expanding computer science and AI literacy is important for preparing students for a hightechnology, knowledgebased economy. However, we are simultaneously being told that SSA growth is limited and likely below CPI, while districts face rising costs in healthcare, salaries, utilities, transportation, and goods.Adding a new graduation requirement without sustainable funding will force districtsespecially small and rural onesto shift staff, reduce other electives, or cut existing programs to make room. When new mandates are layered onto flat or inadequate funding, something else gives.If we are going to legislate additional requirements, we must fully fund them. Adequate and ongoing support is paramount to achieving the intended outcomes while preserving strong academic choices and programs that educate the whole child.

02-11-2026

Caleb Bonjour [Gladbrook-Reinbeck CSD]

The challenges facing schools with student behavior are incredibly complex and multifaceted. HF 2122 attempts to address a real concern, but there is no hardline playbook for students with significant and complex needs. These situations often intersect with IDEA, Section 504, ADA, and manifestation determination requirements. Mandating rigid protocols risks unintended legal consequences and increased litigation for districts.Overly prescriptive discipline requirements can tie up limited time, services, and funding that should instead be invested in proactive solutionsexpanded mental health services, behavior support staff, alternative placements, and meaningful professional development.Rural districts in particular often lack access to specialized services or alternative settings. When placements are required but not locally available, costs escalate, increasing special education deficits and, ultimately, local tax burdens.We need Researchbased solutions, not mandates.

02-11-2026

Caleb Bonjour [Gladbrook-Reinbeck CSD]

My greatest concern with HF 2003 is the siphoning of funding from our already greatly depleted AEAs. Districts are already struggling with reduced behavior and special education supports following prior AEA cuts. Many students with significant behavioral needs do not yet have an IEP, and we no longer have the same access to AEA expertise and consultation we once did.Redirecting special education support services funding away from AEAs will only exacerbate these challenges. We absolutely need more behavior support centers and specialized services for students with significant needsbut not at the cost of further weakening the AEA infrastructure that districts depend on.If we are serious about addressing behavioral and special education needs, this must be funded as a new investmentnot by cutting support somewhere else.

02-11-2026

Rachel Gravert

NO should be the default vote for almost all bills on the docket. They are largely performative appeals to culture war issues, and/or will have unintended consequences. An example is HSB 682, the one calling for consequences for educators who "celebrate" political violence. Did you know that comments just showing frustration with the whole political environment (such as "and the world keeps on spinning") got counted as "celebration" with professionals getting on doxxing lists like Charliesmurderers.com (now defunct)? Others got fired for simply reposting Kirk's own words IN CONTEXT. This would be just as troublesome if the names were Alex Pretti and Renee Good. These culture war issues are nonpartisan if you think about them and consider how opposition could use it against you if the tides turn.