Q: Do you support creating a state-run mandatory group insurance program for school districts?

This is an important and complex issue that was discussed during the last legislative session. From my perspective, this is an important question to ask those running for state legislative positions.

SF 2909, the proposed mandatory statewide healthcare program for school employees, did not advance last session, but the conversation is still ongoing at the Capitol and in the local news.

I watched the testimony on SF 2909, and it was difficult to hear teachers and paraprofessionals from other districts across Minnesota describe struggling with healthcare costs.

At the same time, our school board is not elected to solve Minnesota’s healthcare system. I’m elected to help govern Stillwater Area Public Schools and to look out for the best interests of our students, staff, families, and taxpayers.

Our district already provides strong healthcare benefits through local negotiations. Locally, we work with our employee groups to provide strong benefits while also looking for ways to manage and control costs. Our employees deserve quality, affordable healthcare, and I believe our community values taking care of the people who serve our students every day. I have yet to be convinced that SF 2909 would provide better coverage or better value for our employees. I also want to hear from our own staff. I haven’t heard a compelling reason why this proposal would make sense for Stillwater Area Public Schools or improve what our employees currently receive. I do not support SF 2909 as proposed.

House Research data shows Stillwater Area spent about $27,500 in employer-paid health insurance per listed teacher and paraprofessional in FY2025, compared with a statewide average of roughly $14,700. Our district has already made a significant investment in our employees’ healthcare. I’m concerned that districts like ours that already provide strong benefits could receive less state support under a one-size-fits-all system. That does not feel equitable and could penalize districts for already making significant investments in benefits for their staff.

I also have concerns about local control. Healthcare benefits are part of contracts negotiated locally by elected school boards and employee groups. Moving this into a mandatory statewide pool, with a labor-management committee that does not include an elected school board representative, reduces local flexibility and could create another obligation for districts without sustainable state funding. I have been vocal about underfunded mandates, and I am concerned this could become another significant financial obligation for school districts.

I support gathering better statewide data first. The new reporting requirements school districts need to meet should give policymakers a better understanding of what districts currently provide and what those benefits cost. That information should be carefully analyzed before the state moves toward a statewide system.

AMSD (Association of Metropolitan School Districts), MSBA (Minnesota School Boards Association), and MASA (Minnesota School Administrators Association) have also expressed opposition to SF 2909 as proposed. I believe school boards need to continue monitoring and advocating on this issue, while also remaining open to solutions that genuinely improve healthcare affordability for our employees.

If future legislation comes forward, I will review it objectively and on its merits. My lens will be simple: What is best for our staff, what is financially responsible for our district, and does it preserve appropriate local control? Those are the responsibilities I believe voters have entrusted to their locally elected school board.