School board candidates talk about state mandates

The Dodge County election series is back. As voters get ready to vote on crucial local races the DCI will be asking candidates for local, county, school district, and state house seats a question each week leading up to the Nov. 3 election. The goal of the series is for voters to understand where candidates stand on various issues. School board candidates and municipal candidates will answer questions on opposite weeks to accommodate space. Unopposed candidates will not be participating in the weekly series. Suggestions on questions can be submitted to dcielections@gmail.com

Question of the Week:

Over the last couple of years the state legislature passed a number of mandates for school districts. Is there any mandate you would like to see repealed? If so which one (s) and why? If you do not feel any mandates should be repealed then why not?

Triton School Board

Wally Bluhm

I don’t believe mandates should automatically be viewed as good or bad. They should be evaluated based on whether they benefit students and whether the state provides adequate resources to implement them.
One recent mandate I strongly support is mental health instruction for students in grades 4–12. Mental health is something I care deeply about, and I believe teaching students to recognize emotions, develop coping skills, identify warning signs, and know when and where to ask for help can make a real difference.
I recently asked Triton how this requirement is being implemented. I was encouraged to learn that much of this work was already taking place through social-emotional learning, health education, counselors, social workers, and partnerships with outside mental health professionals.
My concern is funding. While the state provides some resources and aid, Triton indicated that remaining costs must come from the district’s general operating budget.
If the state believes a program is important enough to mandate, it should provide sustainable funding for it rather than requiring local districts to take money away from other educational priorities.

Lloyd Henslin Jr.

Did not respond.

Bruce Huber

As an educator, and I’m sure as a school board member/administrator, mandates/laws that the state legislators pass are carefully review even before passage. The popular mandates come attached with funding and mandates/laws with no funding are far less popular.
Schools are constantly being asked to do more with less and that includes mandates with or without a training component. Most times mandates are added to the in-service schedule for a one-hour training, then addressed in the school curriculum, and nothing is taken out. We have great teachers. Let them teach their curricular area. We already ask them to do a myriad of other duties.
I would hope that the legislature puts forth bills that address real student and district needs.
With only eight legislators out of over 200 that list experience in education as a profession, it seems to me the house and senate should be primarily focused on funding education.
This past session, the legislature unanimously passed a constitutional amendment that will be on this November’s ballot. If approved, it would increase per-pupil distributions for all public schools and charter schools with NO new taxes or levies. That’s the type of legislation I approve of. 

Wendy Kenworthy

Did not respond.
 

Christi Runnells

School board members do not have the authority to repeal state mandates on schools. Instead, I would like to see mandates be fully funded with well-thought-out implementation plans, especially with consideration for small districts. Mandates are often unfunded/underfunded, which places a severe practical and financial burden on districts, especially small districts like Triton. For example, the MN READ Act outlines an excellent goal: every student reads at grade level. The mandate implementation requirements are extensive. Initial staff training meant Triton’s calendar changed to allow teachers time to complete the required training while students were out of school (late starts). It also requires universal screening, individualized intervention plans, and evidence-based curriculum. The goal and details make sense, but in a small school district with limited resources and no designated academic coach, curriculum specialist, etc., all of this extra work falls to already overextended teachers. As a school board member, I would help the district get creative to find innovative solutions to these mandates. School boards are required to support district implementation of all state mandates. My goal is collaboration to maintain the school district’s budget, protect student learning time, and minimize additions to teacher workloads, while successfully implementing state mandates.

Brian Ginder

Did not respond.

Dale Jensen

Did not respond.

Kasson-Mantorville School Board

Albert Brand

Did not respond.
 

Mark Gransee

I feel this question is better suited for a MN legislative candidate. As a school board, we are to enforce the mandates voted in by the state representatives.
I believe that state mandates should become recommendations instead. I would repeal the majority of state mandates and allow them to be individually enforced by local school boards. What is best for Kasson-Mantorville may not be best for Roseau, Duluth, the Twin Cities, or even Byron or Triton.
These state recommendations should be enacted by local school boards based on their individual needs. We know our students and school better than a group of people in St. Paul. We will be able to effectively, and financially, enforce the recommendations based on our individual school needs.

Jilaine Rendler

This affects the entire state but because I have the most experience with this and have seen the staffing and financial impact of this mandate; I would repeal, or at least rewrite, the PFML Paid Family and Medical Leave Act. This has the largest financial impact on the district. From my understanding, KM had a good LOA in place before the mandate (as many employers did)
I don’t want new parents to lose this opportunity to care for and bond with their newborn. But there needs to be a way to accommodate this without adding the extra financial strain to the district.
Other UNFUNDED mandates that could use a deep dive of benefit vs. cost are the READ act and the expanded Special Ed requirements.
There are good intentions with mandates, but it needs individual review and I feel that a school district should have ample opportunity to provide proof that they are meeting reasonable and measurable standards when UNFUNDED mandates are being applied.
The legislature has a history of thinking one shoe fits all, without review and greater understanding of individual performance at each district level. How to make this happen is the next level of complexity.

Mark Torkelson

When the state requires school districts to provide additional programs, services, training, or benefits, it should also provide the funding necessary to fully implement them. Otherwise, the costs ultimately come from the district’s existing resources, forcing local school boards to make difficult choices about staffing, class sizes, programs, and other student needs.
We are seeing this with several recent requirements, including the READ Act, Paid Family and Medical Leave, new graduation requirements, and expanded special education services. Special education is a particularly significant example. At KM, special education expenses have increased from about $3.2 million in 2023-24 to more than $4.1 million in 2025-26, while the state does not reimburse the full cost.
I believe many of these policies have worthwhile goals. However, good policy still has a real cost. Rather than simply repealing mandates, I would ask the Legislature to follow a basic principle. If the state requires school districts to provide something, the state should provide sustainable funding to cover its full cost.

Patrick Madery

During my time serving on the school board, more than 65 state mandates have been enacted. Collectively, these mandates have steadily eroded local control over our schools. Whether related to school finance, student discipline, academic standards, or administrative requirements, these directives limit the ability of local boards, administrations, educators, and parents to make decisions that best serve their district.
A significant concern is that many of these mandates are only partially funded, or not funded at all, by the state. As a result, fiscally responsible districts like ours are forced to identify their own funding sources to comply with new requirements. While many mandates are introduced with positive intentions, their implementation often creates substantial financial and operational challenges. For example, Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) has lead to districts absorbing both the cost of employee leave and the expense of substitute coverage. Coupled with ongoing substitute shortages and staffing limitations in specialized positions.
The READ Act aims to improve literacy outcomes, but the costs associated with curriculum adoption, instructional materials, student screening, interventions, and staff training are not fully covered by the state. Additionally, newly graduated teachers are not entering the workforce with this required training, creating ongoing costs for districts.
These are just two examples of unfunded mandates that have contributed to the financial pressure that ultimately led to our recent levy request.