Editorial: Another attempt at fixing school funding

Today voters across Minnesota will go to the polls to decide whether schools should get more money. Nearly 100 of 336 state districts are asking residents to raise property taxes to support public education.

A good portion of those districts need the additional funds for basic operations because they don't have adequate state support. Many districts are depending on voters to fund basics such as salaries, transportation and books. As we've argued before, the existing funding system needs an overhaul for the good of the schools and the state.

To that important end, a legislative school finance reform task force held its first hearing last week, and it plans to recommend much-needed modifications to the 2008 Legislature. The group's goal should be to give schools a more equitable, reliable revenue base, consistent with what Minnesotans say they want. Polls have shown that state citizens are willing to pay more for good schools, but they want that money to come from state, not local, taxes.

This is not the first time lawmakers have attempted to change the school funding formula. In the late 1970s the Legislature adopted the much-touted Minnesota Miracle, which made sure the state paid at least 80 percent of the total schools bill. But over time the local share starting creeping upwards again.

Then during the late 1990s, the Legislature asked superintendents and school boards what it would cost to bring most students up to grade level. Answers came, but no action was taken.

In 2003, Gov. Tim Pawlenty convened a committee to tackle the question again -- with a similar result. The report hinted that education is underfunded by at least $1 billion, yet nothing happened. Last year, a collection of education stakeholders called Public Schools Minnesota (P.S. Minnesota) picked up the work of the governor's group. P.S. Minnesota passed along its findings and urged creation of the current legislative group. It's our hope that the task force and Legislature will:

• Determine the real price of education. Now that the state has set education standards, we need a consensus about what it costs to meet them.

• Adequately fund the basics. Include enough money on a core formula that levy referendums can be used for their original purpose: capital projects and extras.

• Create a funding mechanism that can withstand political and economic winds. The 2001 reform shifted more of the education bill back to the state. But that progress was soon eroded when a new administration either reduced or flattened school aid, driving many districts to turn to voters for excess levies.

If the current task force does its job and musters the political will to adopt new policies, districts won't need to go hat-in-hand to voters for basic operating expenses. With stable finances, students, staff and parents could spend less energy on referendum campaigns and more on the primary mission -- education.