Defending Local Control: How Iowa's GOP is Undermining Conservative Principles
Once the party of rugged individualists and local control, the new compulsory attendance mandate exemplifies the new authoritarian approach of the Iowa GOP.
Traditional conservative policy goals are no longer represented by the new trends of the authoritarian far-right now holding all levers of power in the state.
The Iowa GOP, under the leadership of Kim Reynolds has flipped traditional conservatism on its head. Gone are the traditional conservative principles of a small, hands-off government. The linked editorial has many listed examples.
Under Kim Reynolds and her rubber stamp legislature, we have constant legislative over-reach.
Contentious ideas that have consistently ranked as highly unpopular in the state have been signed into law despite public objections. The micromanagement of local school districts, city councils, school boards, election boards, and county election offices has overwhelmingly disillusioned voters. This ongoing trend contributes to increasing disengagement among constituents and a diminishing sense of hope among middle-class voters.
The selection of school library books has been taken out of the hands of local communities and replaced by a policy imposed by a centralized authority across all districts in the state. The new law enforces a censorship scheme so stringent that many literary classics once commonly read in junior high school are no longer permitted.
At times, it feels as though there is a central planning comittee making decisions on behalf of local residents.
Centralized control restricts personal freedom, which stands in stark contrast to the principles of traditional conservatism. At the core of conservative ideology is the belief in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and the importance of limited government intervention in the lives of citizens. Traditional conservatives advocate for the idea that individuals and local communities should have the autonomy to make decisions that directly affect their lives, rather than having those decisions dictated by a distant authority.
When centralized control is implemented, it often leads to a one-size-fits-all approach that disregards the unique values, needs, and circumstances of different communities. This can stifle local governance and diminish the ability of individuals to express their beliefs and preferences. Furthermore, it can foster a sense of alienation among citizens who feel that their voices are not being heard in the decision-making process.
In essence, the imposition of centralized policies undermines the foundational tenets of conservatism by limiting the very freedoms that conservatives champion. It raises important questions about the balance between governance and personal autonomy, challenging the idea that a strong central authority can effectively represent the diverse interests of a populace that values independence and self-determination.
In The Fight for Local Control, Campbell F. Scribner demonstrates how, in the decades after World War II, suburban communities appropriated legacies of rural education to assert their political autonomy and in the process radically changed educational law,
Scribner also provides insight into why many conservatives have since abandoned localism for policies that stress school choice and federal accountability. In the 1970s, as new battles arose over unions, textbooks, and taxes, districts on the rural-suburban fringe became the first to assert individual choice in the form of school vouchers, religious exemptions, and a marketplace model of education. At the same time, they began to embrace tax limitation and standardized testing, policies that checked educational bureaucracy but bypassed local school boards. The effect, Scribner concludes, has been to reinforce inequalities between districts while weakening participatory government within them, keeping the worst aspects of local control in place while forfeiting its virtues.
There have been many more instances of the state removing personal freedom and local control.
In the realm of education, planning has largely shifted toward centralized, often politically influenced policies. These one-size-fits-all approaches disregard long-standing conservative principles such as personal liberty, healthcare freedom, and local control. Instead, Governor Reynolds has issued heavy-handed edicts and executive orders that leave little room for interpretation, guidance, or input from those who are most familiar with the local needs of their communities, including local governments, state public school boards, county officials, and educators.
On May 20, 2021, in the early hours of the morning, Governor Reynolds signed a bill mandating that all public schools prohibit mandatory mask requirements. This decision, emblematic of the ongoing micromanagement of local communities, was accompanied by a proclamation from the governor that exemplified double speak,
Iowa is putting parents back in control of their child’s education and taking greater steps to protect the rights of all Iowans to make their own health care decisions, I am proud to be a governor of a state that values personal responsibility and individual liberties.
Middle of the night signing celebration for state-wide anti-mask mandate. Credit: Pat Grassley
On the contrary, much local decision-making authority has been taken away by the governor, who famously claimed she did "trust Iowans to do the right thing." However, it appears that her trust only extends to Iowa families when it aligns with her political agenda. Otherwise, her actions contradict this lofty platitude, revealing a disconnect between her words and the reality of her governance.
The situation in Iowa under Governor Reynolds can be compared to the state takeover of Detroit and the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, in terms of centralized control and the consequences of political decisions on local communities. In both cases, state intervention was justified as a means to address perceived failures at the local level, but it often led to a disregard for local needs and priorities.
In Detroit, the state took over the city’s finances and governance in 2013, citing mismanagement and economic decline. This move stripped local leaders of their authority and sidelined community voices, leading to decisions that many residents felt did not reflect their needs or priorities. Similarly, in Flint, the state’s decision to switch the water supply without adequate safeguards resulted in a public health crisis that deeply affected the local population, revealing a failure to prioritize the community's well-being.
Chronic Absenteeism
The recent changes in compulsory attendance serve as a prime example of Governor Reynolds’ executive overreach and warrant more attention than they have received.
The passage of Article VII of the education appropriations bill, SF 2435, places working poor families, middle-class households, disabled children, single parents, and many Iowans at a significant disadvantage.
These changes may further entrench existing inequalities, making it more difficult for vulnerable populations to navigate the education system. By prioritizing centralized mandates over the unique needs of diverse communities, the governor's actions risk exacerbating challenges faced by those who are already struggling, calling into question the fairness and effectiveness of such policies.
With attendance already mandatory, the new bill imposes additional statewide restrictions, mandating that every school district adhere to a detailed attendance decree. Under this legislation, absenteeism of 10%—which equates to approximately five days in a single quarter—will be classified as chronic absenteeism. In such cases, a letter will be sent to both the county attorney and the student’s parent, outlining the necessary corrective actions.
This approach not only increases the pressure on families, but also raises concerns about the potential for punitive measures rather than supportive solutions for students facing challenges in maintaining regular attendance.
Under the new legislation, if a student reaches 15% absenteeism, custodial parents and the child must attend a "school engagement meeting" and sign a document known as an "absenteeism prevention plan." If a parent or student fails to sign this plan, or if they violate its terms, the county attorney may initiate proceedings against either the parent, the student, or both under Iowa Code 299.6. This punitive approach raises concerns about the potential for legal repercussions and further alienation of families struggling with attendance issues, rather than fostering collaboration and support to address the underlying challenges.
Iowa Code 299.6 outlines the consequences for offenses related to absenteeism, categorizing them as misdemeanors and serious misdemeanors. Punishments can include fines, jail time of up to 30 days, and community service.
Notably, a parent has the option to file an affidavit if they attempted to adhere to the absenteeism prevention plan but the student failed to comply. This provision allows parents to potentially escape punishment by shifting the responsibility onto their child, raising ethical concerns about accountability and the dynamics of family responsibility in managing school attendance. Such policies can create a divisive environment rather than fostering collaboration between schools and families.
While these measures may initially appear reasonable, they impose additional administrative burdens on parents of school-aged children, even at the first-grade level. This creates an environment where parental judgment and the freedom to choose what is in the best interest of their children are increasingly regulated by the state.
Parents are already tasked with numerous responsibilities: working, paying bills, caring for their children, managing school activities, tracking academic progress, and scheduling family appointments. This added layer of bureaucracy can overwhelm, diverting valuable time and energy away from nurturing children and supporting education. The shift towards more stringent state control over attendance undermines the ability of parents to make decisions that best suit their unique circumstances.
Another problem with this centralized approach is that each district’s challenges are unique, and not uniform across the entire state. Each district’s attendance further varies by grade level. For example, Cedar Falls and some urban areas have higher rates of chronic absenteeism among high school age students than do smaller districts and rural areas.
Several organizations recognized a trend of increased absenteeism since the days of COVID-19. Particularly, urban and poor districts in general had among the highest rates of absenteeism.
Absenteeism is not being effectively addressed, and the solution does not lie in imposing more punitive measures. Instead, what is essential is for the state GOP to fully fund our public schools, enabling them to provide the necessary resources to support and assist children at risk of absenteeism.
Absenteeism rates vary by geography and could further be broken down by grade level. Who thinks we have a chronic absenteeism problem in 1st grade? The new law makes no distinction based on grade, existing absenteeism rates, or geography.
There is no distinction made between excused and unexcused absences. Medical appointments, doctor visits, funerals, or even a common cold all count against a student's 10% attendance allowance. For some students with disabilities or medical conditions, meeting this standard could be nearly impossible.
The only exception to this policy requires a doctor's excuse. It appears that the state of Iowa does not trust parents to act responsibly; they demand proof rather than accepting a parent's word. As a result, parents are subjected to scrutiny and penalties for truancy, undermining their authority in managing their children's attendance.
A student with asthma may experience flare-ups that significantly impact their ability to breathe. These episodes vary from person to person and can last anywhere from four to five days in some cases. Given that breathing is essential for life, how can a parent be faulted for a child's absence due to such a health condition?
Public Health Risk?
Just last year, students were urged to stay home from school if they had a cough or a low grade fever. COVID-19 had just ravaged the country. During the pandemic, states were urgently trying to slow the viral spread. Everyone was very concerned with public disease transmission in our schools.
COVID-19 may no longer be an epidemic, but it’s not gone. Neither are influenza and other easily transmissible viruses. There are concerns of potential bird flu spread.
Parents are now required to produce a signed doctor’s note for any excused illness not to count against the 10% limit. This means a required doctor’s visit to get a note of excuse for any condition where the student is taken out of school during the day.
A doctor's visit may not be needed if it’s a chronic condition, or a parent already knows what to do. But in many cases, it may only be needed because of the new onerous requirements of the enhanced statewide mandate. Many times with a cold, this would have previously been unnecessary.
This law is biased against the very people most at risk for absenteeism. Low income and poverty stricken urban areas.
Access to healthcare is not equally accessible among all income levels. Access to healthcare for a one day absence, just to get a doctor’s note, is not easy with a high-deductible healthcare plan, no insurance, or with single or working parents with little to no extra time.
This is disproportionally burdensome for working poor and middle class families with younger children. This makes things more difficult, and adds another obstacle to otherwise very busy parents. In addition, access to same day doctor's care is different depending on a person’s location, and it’s not always available.
How many working families will choose to send their sick child to school rather than deal with threats, mandatory meetings, and punitive punishment from a county attorney? This could increase disease transmission rates in schools.
This unequal access to obtaining the required doctor's excuse may be influenced by socioeconomic status, which stands in stark contrast to the principles of equity that public schools are meant to uphold. This is the very reason these policies should be decided locally, and not mandated because of politics.
In a remarkably short time, we seem to forget our past mistakes. We are overlooking the critical lessons learned from the largest epidemic in modern history, which occurred just a few years ago and resulted in millions of deaths. Are we expected to ignore this tragedy and act as if it never happened? The legislative decisions being made on our behalf defy logic and appear to disregard the best interests of families and local communities.
The state GOP-controlled government has focused on centralizing and consolidating power under the leadership of Governor Reynolds.
The governor's approach is more authoritarian than what one would typically expect from a conservative leader. She has established primary challenges against those who have defied her in the past. Since then, the Iowa GOP legislature has diminished its own authority, willingly ceding any checks on the governor's extreme agenda.
Knowledge is power. The more truth we know, the more difficult it is for implementing harmful government policies. If discrimination, bigotry, unequal treatment, ADA violations, and racism are given this fertile ground unopposed, they will grow quickly.
As the extremist state GOP agenda continues to unfold before us, there is little indication that this trend will slow down. It is crucial for citizens to remain engaged with state policymakers regarding potentially harmful legislation and to oppose it in any way possible. The future of education and equity in our state depends on our collective vigilance and action