Milan board tables action on Governor Lee’s Education Freedom Act; seeks written clarity on $2,000 teacher bonus

The Milan Special School District Board of Education voted to table consideration of a resolution affirming participation in Section 4 of Governor Bill Lee’s Education Freedom Act, saying members need written clarification about which staff qualify and how much accepting the state funding would cost the district.

Board members discussed the law and whether the one‑time $2,000 payment would be restricted to certified classroom teachers, prekindergarten and special education staff, or other certified employees. Multiple board members said they had called state representatives and the commissioner’s office and were told Section 4 is intended to require districts to spend the funds on bonuses only, but that they wanted that interpretation in writing. Superintendent/Board report language used at the meeting identified the item as an “affirmation of intention to participate in section 4 of the Education Freedom Act.”

The board’s discussion included concerns that accepting the state money could be used politically as an endorsement of the broader voucher or school choice legislation. “I made some phone calls asking about this because I don’t agree with anything about this voucher act,” a board member said during debate, while others said the board can oppose the law in principle but still accept money if the state guarantees the funds will be paid as bonuses only.

Board members asked staff to produce written guidance on who qualifies under the law’s 50% rule (teachers who spend at least 50% of their time instructing students) and a cost estimate for two options: (a) applying for the state money for eligible certified teachers and (b) if any groups are excluded, covering the remainder from local funds. Finance staff gave a high‑end estimate in discussion of roughly $350,000–$400,000 if the district were to pay a comparable bonus itself; board members later cited 153 certified teachers on the district roster as the basis for rough cost estimates.

After the requests for written confirmation and a financial estimate, a board member moved to table the resolution until the district receives the clarifying documentation. The motion to table carried on a roll‑call vote of 6–0. Board members asked staff to return with documentation in writing about eligibility, timing, and how and when the funds would reach the district; members also requested an estimate of the local fiscal burden should the board choose to pay bonuses without state funds.

Timing questions arose during the discussion: the Education Freedom Act language referenced an effective date of July 1, 2025, and members asked when funds would actually be disbursed. Board members were told the funds would be allocated in the 2025–26 fiscal year, and staff agreed to seek a written schedule for state disbursement.

The board did not adopt the resolution at the meeting. Staff were directed to obtain written confirmation of eligibility (particularly whether pre‑K and special education staff are included), a schedule for state payments, and detailed district cost estimates for board review before any final action.