The public education system is becoming entangled in the ideological conflicts surrounding the federal health-care law of 2010. Republicans in Congress believe that this law will have negative effects on school workers and budgets, while Democrats argue that these concerns are exaggerated. These differing opinions were evident during a recent congressional hearing, where the impact of the law on schools and colleges was examined. The discussion mainly focused on the potential requirements that educational institutions may face in providing health coverage to support staff and hourly employees.
During the hearing, Republicans, including Chairman John Kline, expressed their predictions that school systems would be compelled to cut programs in order to cover the costs associated with the law. They also warned that some districts may reduce employees’ working hours to avoid compliance with the law’s provisions. Mr. Kline, a Republican representative from Minnesota, stated that the law would have unintended consequences, such as reductions in the quality of insurance for some employees. He emphasized the importance of making decisions based on financial considerations.
However, Chairman Kline acknowledged that the discussion surrounding the health-care law reflects a divide within Washington. The two major parties hold starkly different views on the benefits of this law, creating a "tale of two cities." Democrats present at the hearing argued that the health-care law would ultimately benefit hourly and adjunct employees who have been working substantial hours without health insurance. Without the law, these individuals have had limited options for securing coverage.
One of the key provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is its requirement for public and private employers with at least 50 workers to provide health insurance to full-time employees. Full-time employees are defined as those who work an average of 30 or more hours per week. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in fines. Many school districts would be subject to this mandate.
One issue raised during the hearing concerned the impact on hourly workers. Some school systems heavily rely on hourly workers for positions such as instructional aides and support staff. These systems argue that the provision requiring health insurance for full-time workers would force them to reduce the work hours of these employees to stay below the 30-hour threshold. Others believe that it may lead districts to offer lower-quality health plans to their employees.
Mark D. Benigni, the superintendent of the Meriden school system in Connecticut, voiced these concerns during the hearing. Although the majority of his district’s employees already have health insurance, he estimated that the costs of covering those who do not would be substantial. Mr. Benigni predicted that the law could cost the district $4.6 million over time, which is roughly equivalent to 58 teaching positions. He explained that these costs arise from the law’s requirement for districts to expand benefits and eligibility of coverage for current employees, including providing coverage for children up to the age of 26. Additionally, the law mandates the provision of insurance for employees working at least 30 hours per week, among other requirements. In order to offer insurance, Mr. Benigni stated that the district would need to intervene with certain staff members who have elected higher wages for positions without benefits. This could involve either eliminating these positions, reducing hours, or decreasing wages.
Three witnesses from the postsecondary education sector also testified during the hearing. They included Gregory Needles, a lawyer who advises colleges on their health plans, Maria Maisto, the president of the New Faculty Majority organization that focuses on improving adjunct faculty working conditions, and Thomas Jandris, the dean of the college of graduate and innovative programs at Concordia University, Chicago.
Representative Susan Brooks, a Republican from Indiana, expressed concerns about districts in her state cutting the hours of teachers’ aides. She argued that when these cuts affect employees working with special-needs students, it could lead to negative consequences and potential lawsuits.
Overall, the discussion surrounding the health-care law’s impact on public education reflects a broader philosophical debate between Republicans and Democrats. As the implementation of the law progresses, its effects on school workers and budgets will continue to be scrutinized and debated.
"We definitely agree that schools should not be the source of funding," expressed Mr. Andrews to the superintendent. "In your opinion, where do you propose the funds should come from to assist those citizens in obtaining health insurance?" Prior to delving deeper into the discussion, Mr. Kline deferred the conversation to other legislators. Following the hearing, the superintendent of Meriden expressed, "Ideally, I wish for everyone to have coverage." "However, at some point, the necessary resources must be in place," added Mr. Benigni. "Otherwise, the resources will be drawn directly from our children. They have not been receiving the level of support they rightfully deserve."
