U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the Republican candidate for governor of Wisconsin, is skipping multiple debates with his Democratic rival, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. 

Asked why he decided to break the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association’s 36-year streak of hosting gubernatorial candidate debates, Tiffany said, “We agreed to do one debate. In my experience in Congress as well as the state Legislature, doing one debate is sufficient.”

That’s absurd. In this high-stakes election, as Wisconsinites confront skyrocketing costs, healthcare cuts, struggling public schools, questions about election integrity, the threats posed by artificial intelligence and data centers, among many other issues, a single one-hour forum hosted by WISN on Oct. 21 cannot possibly cover their concerns in depth.

Another planned debate, hosted by the Milwaukee County Intergovernmental Cooperation Council, featuring questions gathered from mayors and community leaders around the state, was also called off this week after Tiffany indicated he would not participate.

The jilted hosts expressed their dismay in a joint statement, saying they are “deeply disappointed” and hope that the next governor will take seriously the local government issues the candidates will not be discussing on the debate stage Oct. 8.

The loss of these debates means Wisconsinites won’t have the opportunity to get answers to real people’s questions. Instead, they’ll have to settle for scripted talking points and millions of dollars in depressing negative ads.

The moderator of the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association debate, journalism professor Jill Geisler, has for years helped gather questions that are important to voters in different parts of the state. “We had someone who came from a community that had been using bottled water because of PFAS … we had someone asking about climate change’s effect on the wild rice harvest in Wisconsin,” she says, recalling some recent debate questions.

“I do think that we’re living in a more siloed era where people prefer to speak through the channels that they know are friendliest to them,” says Geisler, a professor at Loyola University Chicago. “I think what I worry about is that people think of truly well researched debates, you know, where people are asking researched questions, evidence-based questions, that that’s some kind of gotcha trap, and it’s not, you know, it is simply not that.”

The WBA team had already been hard at work planning the debate logistics and gathering issues important to local communities across the state when the debate was canceled. Before every debate, a point person does copious research on each topic, its history, legal background and the candidates’ positions and voting records. “Then we lock up for the last two days to workshop the questions,” Geisler says. After the debate, WBA publishes its questions online with links so people can read more about the issues. “We put all that out there because we think that we can’t cover it all in an hour,” Geisler says. “And people might want to do their own research, but they could see what we used.”

The broadcasters and the local government officials who were painstakingly putting together questions were planning to ask the candidates not just what they have to say about hot-button issues, but what specifically each would do as governor to address SNAP cuts, rural hospital closures, the childcare shortage and other urgent matters confronting Wisconsinites.

All of this serious, in-depth discussion has now been lost.

As President Donald Trump’s approval numbers crash and once-safe Republican congressional districts appear to be in play, Tiffany might want to avoid tough questions about his record of supporting Trump between 93% and 100% of the time while in Congress.

He seems to be leaning on an ad campaign to recast himself from MAGA warrior to folksy midwestern moderate, while relying on his supporters to attack his opponent. 

“In Wisconsin and other states, it is more often Republicans than Democrats who avoid debates,” says University of Wisconsin-Madison political science professor Barry Burden. “There are sometimes exceptions, as when Mandela Barnes resisted doing more than one debate with Ron Johnson in the 2022 Senate race, but it tends to be GOP candidates who are distrustful of journalists or being they have something to lose by taking part.” 

“The irony is that candidates who lost probably could have helped themselves with additional debates,” Burden adds. “Barnes’ narrow loss to Johnson might have been turned into a victory had there been another debate or two. Tiffany is currently trailing in the polls and might also benefit from more face time and opportunities to question his opponent.”

While Crowley is slightly ahead in the latest polls, Tiffany is outspending his Democratic rival on advertising by a margin of  3-to-1, according to J.R. Ross of WisPolitics. Republicans and the outside groups that support them are outspending Democrats by more than $8 million. 

Even that huge financial advantage might not be enough to help Tiffany overcome his record of voting for and defending Trump’s cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, his support for the U.S. military entanglement in Iran and all the other Trump policies dragging down Republican politicians across the U.S.  

It will be interesting, in the single candidate debate next month, if the candidates are pressed to talk about data centers and Flock cameras — two issues where Tiffany has, interestingly, moved to capture some of the energy that animated supporters of Francesca Hong, the democratic socialist candidate Crowley narrowly defeated at the end of the chaotic Democratic primary. Crowley has not taken as strong a stance as Hong opposing either AI data centers or Flock surveillance. Tiffany’s position sounds more assertive, but his record is complicated, since he voted for Trump’s ban on AI regulation in Congress and seems more concerned with blocking wind and solar development that might fuel data centers than the data centers themselves. On Flock, it would be interesting to hear him square his support for local law enforcement with his proposal that local government be forbidden from using state revenue for Flock contracts. 

None of those nuances are going to get much airtime. Instead we will have the barrage of political advertising by shady groups, featuring grainy images and ominous music, shedding more darkness than light. 

“To have something that isn’t about sloganeering … to try to have civil discourse … I think that’s what we’ll have less of,” says Geisler.

For most of us that’s a big loss.

Vice President JD Vance is promoting a Trump administration plan to siphon off federal money that helps working parents afford childcare and use it to subsidize parents who stay at home. The man who ran for office mocking “childless cat ladies” is now trying to stir up a cat fight between working and stay-at-home moms. That’s not remarkable coming from a federal government run by social media trolls. But the main effect of the actual policy Vance is promoting will be to make the lives of already stressed working class families, especially in Wisconsin, even harder, more expensive and noticeably worse than before.

Childcare funding has been in crisis in Wisconsin ever since the pandemic relief money that briefly stabilized providers ran out. Without that money, which “prevented system collapse” according to the Wisconsin Early Childhood Association, supporting more than 430,000 children in nearly 6,000 programs, parents are priced out of care and one in four providers say they will likely have to close their doors. 

Unlike Massachusetts and Vermont, Wisconsin does not treat childcare as a state budget priority. Ours is one of only a handful of states including Idaho, Indiana, Nevada and Ohio that failed to spend any money on childcare beyond what was required to draw down federal dollars, according to a 2025 report by the advocacy group ChildCare Aware. In 2026, the state created a new school readiness program for 4-year-olds. It was a first step toward acknowledging the needs of preschoolers and their parents. But it did nothing to address the massive shortage in care for infants and toddlers.

That’s all fine with JD Vance, who wrote on X that “normal Americans care more about their families than their jobs, and want a family policy that doesn’t shunt their kids into crap daycare so they can enjoy more ‘freedom’ in the paid labor force.”

But Vance is not offering to do anything about the fact that the U.S. is the only wealthy nation on Earth that doesn’t offer paid maternity leave, even though 68% of mothers with children under 6 are employed. Nor is he promoting the kind of high-quality early childhood education system that allows parents in Denmark, after their six months of paid parental leave, to enroll their preschoolers in beautiful, enriching childcare programs they don’t have to feel guilty about.

Instead, what Vance is proposing is to take an already paltry federal childcare subsidy and make working parents fight over crumbs with nonworking parents. Mainly, his aim seems to be to punish single parents. That’s not going to leave anyone in good shape — least of all children. 

One of the saddest aspects of the attack on childcare is that very recently parents, educators, business leaders and politicians of both political parties were finally coming together around the idea that childcare is an essential public good that requires public support.

The “mommy wars” attack Vance wants to revive is long out of date. It has been decades since most American families had the luxury of subsisting on a single wage-earner’s income, trad wife fantasies notwithstanding. 

Another major recent breakthrough is policymakers’ realization that the magic of the free market is not going to provide childcare parents can afford. 

“It was the Biden administration that put a ton of money into childcare during COVID, and we learned from that,” says Ruth Schmidt, executive director of the Wisconsin Early Childhood Association. “The lesson was not just the importance of keeping childcare open so that essential workers could work, but the other piece that’s really interesting is that it demonstrated what can positively happen in childcare when you put a little more money into it.”

Thanks to direct payments to providers during the pandemic, center closures dropped off, the number of teachers leaving the workforce slowed down, tuition stopped climbing and, Schmidt says, “this industry for the first time was finally able to say, ‘Our work is important. It is essential to the functioning of our country. It’s worth investing in, because if you invest in it, these positive things can happen.”

Then came Trump. 

Schmidt calls the rollout of Trump policies that slashed supports for families “death by 1,000 cuts.” During the second Trump administration, cuts to food assistance, Medicaid and Head Start, along with the federal government’s move to loosen safety standards and increase staff ratios in childcare centers have taken a huge combined toll on Wisconsin families.

If it were just ideological — if the Trump administration were actually pursuing the kinds of pronatalist policies that make getting married and having children more attractive, as Vance likes to claim, it wouldn’t be as bad. But instead, while spouting rhetoric about valuing families, this administration is subjecting little kids and their parents to more and more misery.

Wisconsin could do more to protect vulnerable kids. Before leaving the Capitol to hit the campaign trail, state legislators failed to pass a bill that would have used state money to fill the gap after federal childcare stabilization funds lapsed. That set off a vicious cycle, says Paula Drew of the Wisconsin Early Childhood Association. Subsidies for families were cut and their out-of-pocket payments skyrocketed, so cash-strapped parents withdrew their kids from care. Under-enrollment meant less revenue for childcare centers, so they raised their rates. “It just sort of snowballed,” Drew says. “Programs said things like, ‘We’re gonna have to lower salaries for staff.’ … so I think we’re going to lose our educators, and in fact I think we’ve already lost a big percentage of our skilled, seasoned educators.”

An unintended consequence of the state’s investment in 4-year-old pre-K is that it creates a disincentive to provide care for infants and toddlers, which is already more expensive, Drew says. “Wisconsin serves very few infants and toddlers in regulated care,” she says. “And now, with additional funding going into the Get Kids Ready pre-K program, we expect that to be even lower a year from now.”

To make matters worse, the state no longer has a surplus of federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families funds, which it has used to cover some childcare costs for low-income families. 

Sooner or later, Wisconsin is going to have to start dedicating state revenue to childcare. Schmidt and Drew hope that, with a new governor and a new Legislature, Wisconsin will use the state surplus, payroll taxes or a tax on hemp products and gambling, as Louisiana has done, to subsidize childcare. Only then can Wisconsin reduce the astronomical tuition rates that parents pay ($13,000 for home care and $17,400 for center-based care, according to state data), give providers a better wage (currently $13.55 per hour), and stop the wave of childcare closures. 

They especially want the state to shore up disappearing infant and toddler care and retain experienced teachers — not just by giving them a raise but also by allowing them to continue to get higher education “and make this a profession, not just a fleeting step to something else,” says Drew. 

“We need supply of care; supply means educators that can work in programs. And then we want to help parents pay for care on the demand side. … You can’t do one and not the other, because it simply won’t work,” says Drew. “You can’t just help parents pay for care, but not tend to the supply of care available. And you can’t just tend to the supply of care available, but pretend you don’t see that parents are literally going into poverty to try to pay for childcare.”

“Childcare is infrastructure,” says Schmidt. “If we turned around and said to parents with 5-year-olds, you’ve got to start paying $17,000 a year for your child to be in school, we would see empty classrooms, right? We treat these as two very dramatically different concerns. But all of it is about families’ ability to work outside the home, impact the economy, all those kinds of things. “ 

It’s also about having a decent society that values families and takes good care of children. That’s the kind of society we need to come together and focus on, instead of being distracted by the rage-baiting bluster of internet trolls. 

The Wisconsin Broadcasters Association Foundation has canceled its gubernatorial candidate debate planned for this month. 

The organization first announced that it planned to host an October debate between the Republican and Democratic nominees in April. It has hosted debates in the Wisconsin gubernatorial and U.S. Senate races since 1990.

Both Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, the Democratic candidate, and U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the Republican candidate, were invited to participate, but the debate has now been canceled since both candidates did not accept the invitation. Tiffany has said he was only agreeing to one debate because it is “sufficient” for the race.

“Based on legal precedent, for the foundation to air a debate, multiple candidates must participate. Two invitations were sent and both had to be accepted in order to have a debate,” WBA said in a statement. “That did not happen.”

Tiffany told conservative radio host Dan O’Donnell on Tuesday that he would likely only participate in one debate. 

“I had no time. There was lots of negotiations going on behind the scenes,” Tiffany said. “One debate is sufficient to be able to cover the issues that need to be covered.” 

According to WBAY, Crowley was planning to participate in the debate and said in a statement that he looked forward to “continuing the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association’s more than 30-year tradition of putting candidates directly before voters statewide.”

Both candidates have agreed to an Oct. 21 debate hosted by WISN-12. It will be moderated by WISN-12 reporters Matt Smith and Gerron Jordan and will cover topics including cost of living, taxes, immigration enforcement, data centers and election security.

Tiffany said that he watched how the reporters conducted the Democratic primary debate as well as others over his career in politics. 

“I think they are very fair and they set up for what appears to be a good [debate],” Tiffany said. “It’s only going to take one debate to get the information out there for the people of Wisconsin… I just always look for fairness in reporters.”

“We look forward to debating Congressman Tiffany on October 21 and speaking directly with Wisconsinites about why David Crowley is the right choice to deliver for working families and serve as a governor for all Wisconsinites,” the Crowley campaign said.

A legislative study committee on restoring floodplains across the state began its work Tuesday with an all-day meeting in which committee members heard from a number of scientists, state Department of Natural Resources staff and policy experts on the flood management landscape. 

Floodplains exist in flat areas along waterways marking where the water rises to during a flood event. Historically, waterways have been diverted, deepened or stifled to shrink these floodplains for development, navigability and agriculture — often making the effect of a flood more harmful and harming the health of the overall watershed. 

The committee is beginning its work to assess how floodplains can be restored to improve watershed health, restore wetland habitats and better control flooding as climate change has made floods more common and more severe. 

“Why are floodplains important? They promote habitat and biodiversity,” Tracy Hames of the Wisconsin Wetland Association said. “They’re really important for maintaining public health and safety.”

Among the benefits of floodplains, Hames said, are reducing erosion, improving water quality and filtering out nitrate pollution, stopping sediment from flowing downstream and protecting waterways against drought. 

To restore a floodplain, policymakers can remove dams and levees, let waterways return to their original meandering paths, reconnect waterways to nearby wetlands and promote the growth of native plants. But waterways across the country are governed by the Federal Emergency Management Program’s flood insurance program, limiting the tools available to the state.

The committee is made up of state  Sens. Romaine Quinn (R-Birchwood) and Jodi Habush-Sinykin (D-Whitefish Bay), state Reps. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) and Vincent Miresse (D-Stevens Point) and local government officials, non-profit staff and policy experts. 

The meeting Tuesday focused on presentations explaining what a floodplain is, what policy tools are available to restore them, the existing state and federal regulatory landscape and how proposed floodplain projects should be analysed for viability. 

Lawmakers have already been working on proposals for floodplain restoration. During the most recent legislative session, Rep. Todd Novak (R-Dodgeville) began writing a bill that would allow the DNR and local governments to work together to approve and fund floodplain restoration projects. Under a preliminary draft of the Novak bill, local governments would have to approve projects before the DNR could authorize them.

In recent years, lawmakers of both parties have been supportive of wetland restoration projects. While floodplain restoration is subject to stricter regulations, there appears to be a path forward for future legislation. 

“Land use in floodplains is subject to extensive regulation under federal, state, and local laws. Broadly, these laws seek to mitigate risks to life and property and reduce costs associated with flood response,” the Wisconsin Legislative Council wrote in an introductory brief for the committee. “However, these laws may also pose burdens to floodplain restoration projects, which have garnered bipartisan interest in recent years due to their ability to improve flood storage and support other ecosystem services.”

The National Association for Pupil Transportation (NAPT) is opening nominations for three seats on its board of directors, including its newly created region representing Canada and other international members.

NAPT announced Wednesday in an email that nominations for directors of Regions 2, 4 and 6 will be accepted from Aug. 27 through Sept. 25. Electronic voting is scheduled for Nov. 16 through 20, with results announced Nov. 23.

Candidates must be NAPT members in good standing and first submit a letter of intent outlining their background, qualifications and reasons for seeking office. Each candidate needs at least two nominations from active NAPT members within the same region. All materials must be emailed to NAPT President-Elect and nominations committee chair Melody Coniglio by Sept. 25.

Qualified candidates will have until Oct. 7 to submit a required questionnaire and resume, as well as an optional introductory video. Candidates attending NAPT ACTS in Louisville, Kentucky will be introduced during the National Transportation Briefing on Oct. 4.

Candidate campaign pages are scheduled to go live beginning Oct. 12, with campaigning continuing through Nov. 13.

The Region 2 seat is currently held by Alex Spann of Tennessee, while Rosalyn Vann-Jackson of Broken Arrow Public Schools in Oklahoma serves as secretary and Region 4 director. NAPT currently lists the Region 6 director position as vacant.

Region 6 is the newest addition to NAPT’s governance structure. Association members approved a change to the bylaws in January to establish the region and provide representation for international members, with a particular focus on Canada.

The region includes all Canadian provinces as well as Mexico, Europe, Africa, the Middle East/North Africa and the West Pacific, including China, Japan and Singapore.

Meanwhile, Region 2 encompasses Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. Region 4 includes Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah.

Additional election information and updates are available at napt.org/napt-elections.

Related: NAPT Announces Election Winners Ahead of Annual Conference
Related: Gallery: NAPT ACTS 2025
Related: NAPT Announces More Annual Award Winners for 2025

The post NAPT Opens Nominations for 2026 Board Elections in Three Regions appeared first on School Transportation News.

Sarah Reece, a driver trainer for Barren County Schools, was named the Student Transportation Association of Kentucky (STAK) Driver Trainer of the Year, an honor recognizing her commitment to preparing school bus drivers and promoting safe student transportation.

Reece received the award during STAK’s annual conference. The association recognized her for her dedication to training new drivers and helping maintain high standards for school bus safety.

As Barren County’s driver-trainer, Reece mentors and prepares new school bus drivers as they earn their commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) and develop the skills needed to safely transport students. District officials said her focus on thorough instruction has strengthened the transportation department while reinforcing a culture centered on safety.

“We’re proud to see Sarah recognized by her peers across the state,” Superintendent Amy Irwin said in a statement. “She approaches her work with professionalism and a genuine commitment to making sure our drivers are well prepared. This award is a reflection of the important role she plays in serving our students.”

Driver-trainers play a critical role in pupil transportation by preparing prospective school bus drivers through classroom instruction, behind-the-wheel coaching and evaluations before they begin transporting students.

Former Transportation Director Scott Chapman, who worked closely with Reece for many years, said her attention to detail and commitment to excellence have made her an effective trainer.

“Sarah cares deeply about doing the job the right way,” Chapman said. “She takes the time to make sure new drivers are ready before they ever get behind the wheel with students. She’s a great trainer and very deserving of this recognition.”

STAK is a professional organization that promotes excellence in pupil transportation through professional development, training and advocacy for school transportation professionals throughout the commonwealth. District officials said Reece’s recognition reflects not only her dedication to training future school bus drivers but also the district’s broader commitment to providing safe, reliable transportation for students each day.

Barren County Schools concluded its announcement by congratulating Reece on the statewide honor and thanking her for the care, professionalism and dedication she brings to the district’s transportation program.

Related: California School Bus Driver Honored by State for Commitment to Students
Related: ‘Hometown Hero’ Honored for Behind-the-Scenes Service, Dedication in West Virginia Student Transportation
Related: School Bus Driver Wins Inaugural Special Education Service from BusRight
Related: Innovation Choice Awards Open for STN EXPO West 2026

The post Kentucky School Bus Driver-Trainer Earns Statewide Recognition appeared first on School Transportation News.