Editorial: Investing in Minnesota schools

In the Anoka-Hennepin district, six schools could close and 500 teachers could be out of work. Stillwater school officials say class sizes could rise, busing could be cut and activities fees could go up. And Bloomington educators say they could lose counselors, close a school and eliminate reading readiness and music programs.

Similar cuts could occur in many metro area districts over the next two years, say school officials, if voters reject local property-tax increases this fall. According to a Minnesota School Boards Association survey, at least 24 districts in the metro area and 91 statewide will ask voters this fall to raise their property taxes.

But wait. Didn't the 2007 Minnesota Legislature add $800 million to the $12 billion the state already spends on schools? If so many more dollars will be flowing into district coffers, then why the predictions of severe cuts? Hasn't this pattern repeated itself several times in recent years -- schools get more state money, but it is still not enough?

Catching up

Many Minnesota schools seem to be in a constant state of financial catch-up. That's because new state dollars are rapidly consumed by current and ever-changing needs. While it was a good start on getting more funding to schools, much of that $800 million went to pay the state's share of special education costs, a debt that had been in arrears since 2003.

Modest teacher pay increases, double-digit health care increases, new testing and standards, technology, fuel and other expenses have driven costs so high that state increases have barely met the cost of inflation. That is why districts have turned to voters more often for basic operating funds -- not just the building and other extras that referendums primarily used to support.

Fixing the problem

To break that cycle, Minnesotans and their lawmakers must decide and follow through on several matters: First, they must agree on a definition of the "adequate education" that the Constitution says the state must provide. The state is closer to meeting that goal now that some educational standards have been established. But even that has been complicated by federal No Child Left Behind rules and increased emphasis on rigor and more math and science.

Next, state leaders must figure out how much it truly costs to meet those standards.

Finally, they must reach an understanding about how to pay for education, and then fund it in a stable, consistent manner. That is the toughest part of the equation -- stepping up with the right combination of (mostly) state support and some locally generated funds.

Polls show that Minnesotans want increased investment in schools. They are unhappy with school cuts, and supported (in 2004 and 2006) legislative candidates who campaigned on greater support for K-12 and transportation funding. Still, last year, Minnesota voters rejected about 60 percent of the 74 excess-levy referendums that were on ballots across the state -- the lowest percentage of approved school levies since 1980.

Many voters, understandably nervous about their jobs and economic futures, don't want property-tax hikes. Rather, they look for improved school support from the state, where the cost can be spread among more taxpayers.

And they are right.

Looking ahead

P.S. Minnesota, a coalition of state education groups, has developed a preliminary framework to change how the state funds schools. And this year, lawmakers created a task force to review the work of P.S. Minnesota, conduct its own review and make recommendations about possible changes. These are not the first attempts to revise the state's complicated school-funding formula. But with citizen input and a serious commitment to invest more in education, this effort could work