House Bill 2 is a sweeping proposal that touches nearly every aspect of public education in Mississippi. It deserves careful, topic-by-topic consideration, not slogans, shortcuts, or political talking points. Our district supports reforms that strengthen public schools and improve student outcomes, but we are firmly and unequivocally opposed to policies that redirect public education dollars away from the public system without equivalent public accountability.
There are provisions in HB 2 we clearly support. Mississippi’s recent gains in literacy are the result of sustained, evidence-based work. They were not a miracle. Strong instruction aligned to the science of reading made the difference, along with routine progress monitoring, targeted intervention, instructional adjustments, and ongoing efforts to build teacher and leader capacity. That progress was intentional. Extending these strategies into grades 4–8 is a sensible next step. Literacy is not a skill students “finish” in third grade; it is the foundation for success in every subject as academic demands increase.
Similarly, strengthening math instruction through a coherent framework that includes screening and intervention reflects lessons Mississippi has already learned. Students who struggle with foundational math concepts rarely catch up without intentional, well-designed instruction. If the state wants graduates who are ready for advanced coursework, workforce training, and real-world problem solving, this focus is necessary.
We also strongly support the proposed increase in assistant teacher pay. Assistant teachers are essential to the daily functioning of schools. They support early literacy instruction, assist students with disabilities, supervise students, and help maintain safe, orderly learning environments. Raising the minimum salary is not simply an employee benefit; it directly affects recruitment, retention, and stability, especially in rural districts where staffing challenges are persistent. This is an investment that benefits students immediately and in real ways. It is also simply the right thing to do for some very hard-working employees.
Public education is not a consumer commodity; it is a public service. Like roads, bridges, parks, libraries, and fire departments, public schools exist to serve the entire community, not just the individuals who use them on a given day. Taxpayers support these services because they strengthen communities, promote safety and opportunity, and serve the common good, even if every resident does not directly or immediately benefit from every service.
Public schools function the same way. Families may choose different educational paths at different times, but a strong public school system benefits everyone through workforce readiness, civic stability, economic development, and community cohesion. Treating education funding as a personal voucher rather than a shared investment shifts the focus from building strong systems to maximizing individual transactions, and that shift carries long-term consequences.
When public education is viewed primarily as a consumer choice, the responsibility to maintain access, equity, accountability, and continuity weakens. Public schools, unlike private options, cannot opt out of serving high-need students, rural areas, or costly services. They are designed to be stable, reliable institutions that communities can count on, much like emergency services or public infrastructure.
Our concern with HB 2 is that it moves Mississippi away from a shared public commitment to education and toward a model that fragments funding and responsibility. Public dollars should be used to sustain public systems that serve all students and communities, not to convert a public good into a marketplace transaction.
Where our district draws a firm line is on the use of public education dollars to subsidize private schools, homeschools, and microschools without public accountability, audits, and reporting. We are adamantly opposed to it. Public schools are required to serve every child (we are proud to do so) and operate under extensive accountability, transparency, and non-discrimination requirements because they are funded by taxpayers. HB 2’s creation of Magnolia Student Accounts would allow public funds to flow to private, and in some cases unaccredited, schools without those same public obligations.
This is not a philosophical objection; it is a practical one. If taxpayer dollars are involved, taxpayers deserve safeguards. That means transparent financial reporting, comparable student outcome data, and clear protections for students and families. Under HB 2, public school districts would remain subject to increasing accountability while private recipients of public funds would not. That imbalance is not responsible public policy.
The fiscal implications are also significant, particularly for rural districts. Public school systems operate with substantial fixed costs: transportation routes, facilities, utilities, staffing, specialized services, and safety measures. Those costs do not disappear when enrollment fluctuates. Policies that allow funding to leave districts without addressing fixed operational expenses create instability that ultimately affects classroom services. Mississippi has made progress by improving predictability and stability in school funding, and we should be cautious about reversing that progress.
With respect to public-to-public transfers, our district is generally neutral, but cautious. Families should have options within the public system, and responsible transfers can be managed. However, unrestricted portability can create staffing disruptions, class-size imbalances, transportation challenges, and scheduling complications that are often underestimated in policy discussions. If transfer policies are expanded, they must include clear timelines, transparent criteria, capacity limits, and funding rules that recognize operational realities.
HB 2 also raises concerns related to special education. Students with disabilities deserve strong safeguards that ensure services are appropriate, evidence-based, and aligned with individual needs. Expanding education savings options without clear quality controls risks placing vulnerable students in settings that may lack the capacity to meet their needs, while also weakening the protections families rely on and that the law guarantees.
The risks associated with HB 2 are magnified in rural and small districts. These districts do not have large enrollment bases or excess capacity. They operate with lean staffing models and rely on stable funding to maintain transportation routes, specialized programs, and basic course offerings. When students leave, funding leaves, but the buses still run, the buildings still open, and the services remain legally required.
In Newton County, where every district is small, losing even a handful of students can trigger outsized consequences: teaching positions eliminated, classes combined, electives dropped, or support services reduced. Over time, this can create a downward spiral where diminished offerings make districts less able to serve students effectively. HB 2 does not adequately address this reality.
While choice policies may appear neutral on paper, their impact is not neutral in practice. Rural districts bear a disproportionate share of the financial and operational consequences, even as they continue to serve high-need students and maintain extensive service obligations.
Finally, and less central than funding or instruction, but still important, changes of this magnitude inevitably affect athletics and extracurricular activities. In many Mississippi communities, especially rural ones, these programs are not peripheral. They are central to student engagement, development, attendance, and community connection. Large-scale transfer policies can create competitive imbalances, increased enforcement disputes, and incentives for movement based on athletics rather than academics. Even when eligibility is governed by external rules, increased student mobility places real strain on schools and communities.
Mississippi’s educational progress has come from strengthening public schools, investing in educators, and holding systems accountable for results. We support the portions of HB 2 that continue that work. But we cannot support policies that divert public dollars away from public schools without public-level accountability or that risk destabilizing the very systems that serve the vast majority of Mississippi’s children.
Our position is simple: public funds should be used to strengthen public entities with transparency, fairness, and long-term stability for students, families, and communities.
Dr. Tyler Hansford serves as the Superintendent of the Union Public School District. He is the President of Mississippi Association of School Superintendents and serves as the President of the East Mississippi Center for Educational Development.
