Where Do We Go From Here?

A Practical 12-Month Action Agenda for District Leaders and Policymakers

It’s easy to write about education policy. It’s harder to run schools while policy shifts in real time.

HB0002IN has sparked big questions about accountability, choice, testing, staffing, reporting, funding stability, and fairness. Regardless of where someone stands on the bill, most people agree on two things:

1. Students deserve strong schools.

2. Public education is carrying too much load.

So here’s the question that matters most: What can we do in the next 12 months that makes public education stronger—without waiting on perfect politics?

This post is a practical roadmap—some steps for districts, some for policymakers, and some for communities to support. It’s not theoretical. It’s what you can actually do.

Guiding principles for the next year

Before the action steps, we need shared principles:

• Reduce testing and reporting that do not improve instruction.

• Protect developmentally appropriate practice in the early grades.

• Fund intervention capacity, not just identification requirements.

• Build transparent accountability that includes context.

• Create fair rules across publicly funded options.

• Treat teacher retention as a top-tier outcome.

If an action step violates these principles, it’s probably a distraction.

The 12-month agenda

Phase 1: First 60 days — stabilize and simplify

1) Districts: Conduct a “Mandate & Workload Audit”

List every recurring requirement in your district that consumes time:

• assessments (state, district, vendor)

• data meetings

• documentation expectations

• dashboards and reports

• intervention plan paperwork

• local compliance routines

Then label each item:

• Required by law

• Required by state guidance

• District-created

• School-created

• Redundant/optional

Goal: identify what can be removed immediately without violating the law.

2) Districts: Protect recess and movement time (K–5)

Write it into principal expectations and campus schedules:

• recess is protected

• movement breaks are normal

• recess is not routinely withheld for academics

This is a cultural decision, not just a scheduling decision.

3) Districts: Create one public “Context Sheet” to accompany any dashboard data

One page. Plain language:

• mobility rate

• poverty indicators

• staffing vacancy rate

• SPED service intensity

• transportation miles

• facility age

This prevents raw numbers from becoming political weapons.

4) Policymakers: Commit to a “Mandate Replacement Rule”

For every new reporting/assessment mandate introduced, remove or consolidate one existing requirement.

If policymakers won’t do this, district capacity will continue to collapse.

Phase 2: Months 3–6 — build capacity where it matters

5) Districts: Strengthen intervention systems with time and people

If screening expands, ensure intervention isn’t just paperwork by:

• protecting intervention blocks

• using small groups with clear decision rules

• ensuring progress monitoring is manageable, not constant

• assigning intervention staff strategically

The goal is not more data. It’s faster skill recovery.

6) Districts: Implement a retention-centered leadership plan

Identify your top drivers of teacher exit locally:

• workload

• discipline support

• planning time

• communication breakdowns

• excessive documentation

Then set district-level “retention guardrails,” such as:

• limits on required weekly documentation

• protected planning time

• consistent discipline support expectations

• mentorship structures

7) Policymakers: Fund intervention capacity, not just mandates

If the state requires more screening and reading/math plans, districts must have:

• interventionists

• specialists

• coaching capacity

• training support

Unfunded identification requirements create frustration and failure.

8) Policymakers: Establish baseline transparency for all publicly funded options

Not identical systems—but shared baseline reporting:

• student protection standards

• basic outcomes reporting

• fiscal transparency summaries

• enrollment/withdrawal policies in plain language

This protects families and reduces unfair comparisons.

Phase 3: Months 7–12 — build fair accountability and long-term stability

9) Districts: Shift internal accountability to learning indicators, not just compliance

Build district dashboards that prioritize:

• early literacy growth

• early numeracy growth

• attendance/chronic absenteeism

• teacher retention and vacancy trends

• intervention response timelines

• student engagement indicators

Let compliance serve learning—not replace it.

10) Districts: Prepare fixed-cost stability plans

If choice expands, districts must model:

• best-case enrollment

• moderate shift

• high shift

Then identify:

• true fixed costs

• variable costs

• what can be adjusted in-year vs next-year

• what programs must be protected first

11) Policymakers: Build a stabilization mechanism for fixed-cost districts

If enrollment shifts accelerate, districts need transition protections:

• glide paths

• stabilization funds for rural/high-poverty districts

• transportation/facilities base-cost recognition

Without stabilization, public schools enter a downward spiral.

12) Policymakers + districts: Define the Fair Accountability Compact

Convene a working group that includes:

• rural districts

• high-poverty districts

• SPED leaders

• parent voices

• teachers

• nonpublic/charter representation

Define a baseline compact:

• student protection

• transparency

• comparable outcomes reporting

• fiscal safeguards

• high-need service expectations

Choice is sustainable only when fairness is built into the system.

What communities can do (and why it matters)

The public often feels powerless, but communities have influence when they focus on concrete questions:

• What mandates are being removed when new ones are added?

• How will this affect recess and developmentally appropriate practice?

• Where is the funding for intervention staffing?

• How will public schools remain stable with fixed costs?

• What protections and transparency apply to all publicly funded options?

A healthy public conversation forces better policy.

A balanced takeaway

The next 12 months don’t have to be chaos. They can be reset.

If leaders focus on:

• reducing mandate load,

• protecting elementary development,

• funding intervention capacity,

• building fair accountability,

• and treating retention as a core outcome,

Mississippi can move toward a stronger public education foundation even amid policy change.

The goal is not to win a political fight.

The goal is to build a system where educators want to stay, children can learn like children, and families can trust that public education remains strong for everyone.

Reflection question for readers

If you could change only three things in the next 12 months to strengthen public education in Mississippi, what would they be—and why?