Issue of the Week: The Conference Committee on HF 630 (Education Finance Omnibus bill) began meetings this week.

Why it Matters:

• HF 630 passed the MN House of Representatives first (before the companion bill SF 453 passed the Senate) so the bills are now both referred to as HF 630.
• The conference committee will discuss differences, makes agreements on what is included in the final bill and then will send a final bill (conference committee report) to the floor of each body for final approval (no amendments can be made at that point).  Until the report is finalized the gavel is exchanged between the chairs of each body and committee agenda is determined by that particular chair.
• On Thursday, May 9, 2013, the HF 630 Conference Committee met for the first time.  During the meeting the members reviewed the spreadsheets and side-by-side documents and adopted same and similar language, much of which was included as technical changes in the MDE policy bill.  Also adopted was language on the Special Education Case Load Task Force and required report on homeless children.
• On Friday, May 10, 2013, the committee reconvened and discussed all-day kindergarten, early learning, testing, integration and achievement program, and charter schools.

Further Reading and Information

• Education Conference Committee Member Contact Information
• Scott Croonquist’s Education Finance Bill Summary-PowerPoint presentation
• What’s in the bills? -AMSD’s summary chart of the bills
• Bill Comparison Summary of HF 630-Prepared by Senate and House Research and Fiscal Staff
• Appropriations Comparison Summary of HF 630-Prepared by Senate and House Research and Fiscal Staff
• Levies Comparison Summary of HF 630-Prepared by Senate and House Research and Fiscal Staff

The following AMSD Guest Blog Post was submitted by George Kimball, AMSD Chair and School Board Member from White Bear Lake Public Schools.

With the 2013 legislative session rapidly winding down, I strongly urge AMSD board members, district staff, parents and concerned citizens to contact the Governor, House and Senate Leaders and your local legislators to urge them to adopt at least the level of funding for E-12 Education proposed by the House.  There is only a short time left to influence this decision as the Governor and legislative leaders are currently negotiating spending targets.  Don’t wait – make that phone call or send that email today!

The House proposes to increase funding for E-12 Education by $550 million for the 2014-15 biennium.  The House proposal is not extravagant.  In fact, it would only represent an inflationary increase for our schools for the next two years.  In contrast, the Governor proposed to increase E-12 funding by $344 million and the Senate proposes about a $356 million increase for the biennium.  The Senate’s total spending target for E-12 education is $486 million but $130 of that is dedicated to property tax relief which does not provide any new funding for schools.

The proposals from the Governor, Senate and House all contain some excellent provisions that would benefit the students of Minnesota.  However, without a spending target that at least keeps pace with inflation, school districts will continue to face budget challenges and be forced to lay off staff and increase class sizes.  A recent budget survey of AMSD member school districts highlights the consequences of not providing at least an inflationary increase for our schools.  The budget survey shows that under the level of funding proposed by the Governor, AMSD members would face a combined shortfall in excess of $133 million for the 2013-14 school year.  The picture would look very similar under the Senate bill which proposes only a slightly higher level of funding than the Governor.

Adopting at least the level of funding proposed by the House would allow Minnesota to make progress toward closing the achievement gap and providing learning opportunities for all of our students.  The AMSD Board of Directors has identified its key priorities for the 2013 session. Specifically, we encourage the Governor and legislators to adopt the following priorities:

Formula Allowance –An increase in the basic formula of 2% per year for the 2014-15 biennium.  If the basic formula had kept pace with inflation since the 1991-92 school year, it would be $1,537 per pupil higher today.  The basic formula is the most critical funding stream for our schools and it is important that it at least keep pace with inflation.

English Language Learner Funding – Expand eligibility for ELL funding from 5 to 7 years to close the achievement gap.  Research strongly supports expanding the number of years ELL services are available to students and doing so will help close our very troubling achievement gap.

Special Education – Support the special education funding and reforms proposed by Governor Dayton.  Minnesota school districts continue to face a daunting special education cross-subsidy.  Metropolitan school districts are particularly impacted by insufficient special education funding from the federal and state governments.

Safe School Levy – Our public schools are increasingly being asked to address the needs of students with mental health challenges.  An increase in the safe schools levy is critical to help provide the resources our schools need to ensure a safe learning environment for students and staff.

Unfunded Mandates – Refrain from adopting any new, unfunded mandates.

Referendum Revenue – Referendum revenue should continue to be based on resident pupils rather than pupils served.  School districts are responsible for all of their resident students and provide services such as transportation and special education to resident students even if they are not enrolled in the district.

A final bill that includes these priorities in addition to funding full-day kindergarten and continuing a revamped integration aid and levy program focused on integration and student achievement would make a tremendous difference for the students of Minnesota.  Let’s make it happen.  Please contact the Governor, legislative leaders and your local legislators today.

Leadership and Conference Committee Contact List

Issue of the Week: Restrictive Procedures legislation is included in SF 978 (Senate Education Policy bill) and HF 630 (Education Finance Omnibus bill). The bills include language that clarifies the conditions and circumstances under which properly trained school district staff may use prone restraint procedures to ensure a safe learning environment for students and staff.

Why it Matters:

• In the special education environment, prone restraint is still an important tool in the array of emergency responses district staff use to ensure the safety of all of the students and staff in our schools. 
• The language being considered by the legislature was part of a plan put forward by a stakeholder group convened by the Minnesota Department of Education.  The group included school board members, special education directors, intermediate school district staff and representatives from special education advocacy organizations.  The plan to reduce the use of restrictive procedures in Minnesota was included in the FY 2013 Report to the Legislature on the Use of Prone Restraint. 
• School districts are serving more and more students with highly aggressive behaviors as budget cuts have reduced options in long-term residential facilities. However, state policymakers have not provided appropriate resources or a comprehensive solution to help our public schools prepare for this change in policy. 
• Intermediate District Staff Injuries Related to Student Behavior (Injuries were the result of: biting (often multiple times), hitting, throwing, pinching, kicking (in the back, head and chest), shoving, grabbing and doors slammed on fingers/hands.)
  • FY 2011
    • ISD 916: 67
    • ISD 917: 142
    • ISD 287: 276
• FY 2012
  • ISD 916: 82
  • ISD 917: 155
  • ISD 287: 338
• There are a number of bills and initiatives at the legislature that set the stage for earlier intervention for students and families.  Pursuing these initiatives will decrease the need for the use of restrictive procedures in our schools.  We need to help children with therapies and skills development and that will give them coping mechanisms so they can make better choices and reduce dangerous incidents. But until stakeholders can come together on alternatives, prone restraint is still needed in emergency situations to keep students and staff safe.

Further Reading and Information

• AMSD Connections-May 2013
• AMSD Guest Blog Post on Prone Restraint-March 2013
• AMSD Children’s Mental Health Summit-November 2012

Issue of the Week: The House and Senate Omnibus Education Finance bills pass the floor in their respective bodies.

Why it Matters:

• The House Education Finance Omnibus bill passed the House floor on April 23, 2013 on a final vote of 83-50. Amendments adopted on the House floor:
  • A66 Amendment (Erickson, S) adds the language “college-level” to the skills exam in reading, writing and mathematics for teacher licensure.
  • A89 Amendment (Gruenhagen) adds an additional duty to the Special Education Case Loads Task Force to identify the special education requirements in state statute and rule that exceed federal requirements for special education and analyze the benefits of those requirements.

• The Senate Education Finance Omnibus bill passed the Senate floor on April 25, 2013 on a vote of 35 to 28.  Amendments adopted on the Senate floor:
  • A40 Amendment (Wiger) made technical changes and also deleted operating the referendum extension language.
  • A52 Amendment (Chamberlain) added language to the early childhood scholarship section to require the director to coordinate evaluation and assessment efforts and report to the legislature on the performance of the scholarship program.
  • A59 Amendment (Nelson) allows districts to use up to 15% of compensatory revenue for academic purposes (current amount is 5%).
  • A50 Amendment (Dahle) makes technical changes related to parental notification for GRAD changes.
  • A60 Amendment (Westrom) allows a parent to withdraw a child from all-day kindergarten and place into a half-day or alternative program without being truant.  Also adds language that school districts must have a policy to accommodate parental options regarding kindergarten.
  • A42 (Tomassoni) allows Success for the Future Grant applications to be considered if the application was postmarked on or before an MDE deadline for application.

Further Reading and Information

AMSD Summary of Omnibus Finance Bills

House Finance Omnibus Bill (HF 630):

• Bill Page
• Summary of bill
• Appropriations Spreadsheet
• Levies Spreadsheet
• District Look Up (scroll to middle of the page)

Senate Finance Omnibus Bill (SF 453):

• Bill Page
• Summary of bill
• Appropriations Spreadsheet
• Levies Spreadsheet

The following AMSD Guest Blog Post was submitted by Matthew Mohs, Interim Chief Academic Officer, Saint Paul Public Schools.

“In most other countries, tests are used to inform curriculum improvement and professional development, and to determine student pathways after middle or high school, but not to serve as arbiters of graduation, personnel decisions, or school sanctions and survival. Tests are taken seriously, but there is much more room for school-based assessment, scored by teachers, that counts in the system and enables assessments that promote deeper learning.” Darling-Hammond and Adamson, Stanford University (2013)

Since implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act over a decade ago, standardized testing has become omnipresent in our public schools. While these types of assessments have a valid and important role to play in the education of our children, they cannot and should not be the sole measure of success, especially for our students.  No single assessment, no matter how well designed, can account for every single possible explanation for a given result.  When taken as one data point among many, standardized tests can provide information on the progress of a student, a class, a school or a district.  But in our state, the state’s high school tests serve a much more serious role – as “impartial” judge and juror regarding the future of every one of our potential high school graduates.

This commitment to high stakes graduation exams in Minnesota has put the state on an unacceptable collision course with reality.  Beginning with the members of the Class of 2015, under current law, members of that class will have to pass all three GRAD exams, including mathematics, to receive a diploma.  This is on top of completing all of the other course requirements mandated by the state and local districts.  Looking at existing patterns of performance on the GRAD, it is very likely that approximately 30% of the state’s seniors would not be eligible for graduation.  Even larger proportions of students of color, low-income students, and English Learners would find themselves excluded from graduation.  Many of these students are able to demonstrate in other ways their preparation for life after high school.

Right now, the Minnesota Legislature is considering a significant reform in the state’s assessment system.  This proposal focuses the state’s assessments on preparation for college and career.  The elementary MCAs would continue largely as they are, except for the requirements to be fully adaptive.  Beginning in 8th grade, students would start taking a suite of aligned assessments tied to college and career readiness benchmarks.  The final required assessment in 11th or 12th grade would have to be recognized by higher education as an entrance exam.  Students identified as not yet on track would take a diagnostic college placement test in 11th grade to identify the areas of improvement needed before graduation.

Under this proposal, the GRAD would disappear and the state would not require a specific score on the new suite of assessments.  Opponents of this proposal have fixated on the lack of a score as an attempt to lower standards and “dumb down” the diploma.  This is furthest from the truth, as this proposal is truly an attempt to shift the conversation in our schools.  It is about exposing students to increased rigor and supporting them in their journeys beyond high school – whatever path they wish to choose.  High school graduation is not sufficient for most jobs of the future and the secondary experience must become centered much more on building multiple pathways from which students can choose based upon interests and talents.

Opponents of this assessment proposal cite Minnesota statistics suggesting that the GRAD is working to raise achievement and close the teaching and learning gap.  Yet, these are merely assertions with no evidence of causation.  Numerous research studies in recent years have shown that exit exams do not raise overall achievement in the state or have very real impacts on particular groups of students – especially students of color, English Learners, and low-income students in terms of increased dropout rates and lower graduation rates.  These studies don’t even get at the very real human and social cost imposed individually on the students who fail these exams repeatedly.

The opponents of this proposal agree in principle with virtually the entire proposal.  The difference lies in the use of the results.  Some wish to make all the changes in assessments as proposed but keep a required score – potentially at a level that could prevent a majority of the state’s students from graduating on time.

Standardized tests are seductive – to educators, policymakers, and the public.  They have an air of objectivity and infallibility.  But, those of us closely connected to education know this is far from the truth.  Why should 13 years of hard work, perseverance, and learning boil down to 40 questions on a test?  Why should Minnesota continue implementing a policy that is ineffective and harms some of our students?

No test, no matter how well designed, is going to raise achievement by itself.  At their core, standardized tests are supposed to be one tool, among many others, to support and inform teaching and learning.  When they are used to render judgment, their primary purpose is inevitably corrupted.  It is time to embrace a new future for assessment; one in which Minnesota tests are used to propel students forward on their learning journeys rather than holding them back.

Issue of the Week: The House and Senate Omnibus Education Finance bills continue path through legislative committees.

Why it Matters:

• The Senate Education Finance Omnibus bill cleared the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Tax Committee last week and the next stop for the bill will be the Senate floor.
  • Action of note in the Senate Finance Committee: An amendment that would postpone the adoption of the teacher evaluation program until the 2015-2016 school year was adopted.
  • No changes were made to the bill in the Senate Tax Committee.

• The House Education Finance Omnibus bill cleared the House Tax Committee and then the House Ways and Means Committee last week and the next stop for the bill will be the House floor.
  • No changes were made to the bill in the House Tax Committee.
  • Action of note in the House Ways and Means Committee: An amendment to remove the pre-Labor Day start language was adopted.

Further Reading and Information

AMSD Summary of Omnibus Finance Bills

House Finance Omnibus Bill (HF 630):

• Text of bill
• Summary of bill
• Appropriations Spreadsheet
• Levies Spreadsheet
• District Look Up (scroll to middle of the page)

Senate Finance Omnibus Bill (SF 453):

• Text of bill
• Summary of bill
• Appropriations Spreadsheet
• Levies Spreadsheet

Issue of the Week: The House and Senate Education Finance Committees release Omnibus Education Finance Omnibus bills.

Why it Matters:

• The Omnibus Education Finance bills establish the funding levels for our schools for the next biennium.  These bills contain numerous policy and fiscal provisions that have been heard throughout session.  Most of the House Omnibus Education Policy bill will be included in the Education Omnibus Finance bill.  In the Senate, the Omnibus Policy bill will be stand-alone bill.

Highlights of the House bill:

• Basic formula increase of 2% per year
• Funding for full-day kindergarten by weighting kindergarten students at 1.0
• Integration levy restored
• Equity adjustment for low or no referendum districts
• Referendum equalization aid increased by $33 million.
• $50 million for early childhood scholarships

Highlights of the Senate bill:

• Funding for full-day kindergarten by weighting kindergarten students at 1.0
• Formula allowance increase of $52 per pupil (1%) in FY 14.  No increase in FY 15
• The equity, operating capital and safe schools levies are all turned into aid programs and the levies are eliminated.  Safe schools revenue increases by $4 per pupil.  Property taxes are reduced statewide by $150 million.
• Reestablishes a general education levy.
• The integration levy is NOT reinstated
• Metro school boards would be authorized to renew up to $400 per pupil of an existing referendum for 5 years – Regional Center school boards could renew up to $200 of an existing referendum by a majority vote of the school board for up to 5 years
• Early childhood scholarships are increased by $44 million
• Q Comp is rolled out of general education revenue and is established as a categorical program at the same funding level.

Further Information and Reading

House Finance Omnibus:

• HF630 delete-all amendment
• Delete-all amendment appropriations spreadsheet
• HF630 delete-all amendment levies spreadsheet
• HF630 delete-all amendment district runs

Senate Finance Omnibus:

• S.F. No. 978: A-22 amendment  (Policy Provisions)
• SC9302-5: Omnibus E-12
• FINANCE ED ART2: Omnibus E-12
• FINANCE ED ART3
• FINANCE ED ART4-1: Omnibus E-12
• ART6.FAC-1: Omnibus E-12
• ART5.SPEC-2: Omnibus E-12
• ART7.NUT-2: Omnibus E-12
• FINANCE ED ART8: Omnibus E-12
• ED ART9: Omnibus E-12
• ED ART10: Omnibus E-12 
• The appropriations and levy tracking spreadsheets can be found here:http://www.senate.mn/departments/fiscalpol/tracking/index.php?ls=#header

Issue of the Week: House Education Finance Committee hears HF 234 (operating referendum extension).

Why it Matters:

• HF 234 would authorize a school board to renew an expiring referendum for the same amount by school board action.
• Testimony in support of the bill included Board Member Jerry VonKorff, St. Cloud Area School District, Superintendent Kate Maguire, Osseo Area Schools and Superintendent Dennis Carlson, Anoka-Hennepin School District.
• Every school district faces unique needs, which depend on a variety of factors, including, demographics, geography, and district size.  Locally elected school boards are best positioned to identify and respond to the varying needs of their districts.  The Governor and Legislature should empower school boards to respond to the concerns and desires of their communities by granting them the ability to renew an existing operating referendum by a majority vote of the elected school board.

Further Reading and Information

• AMSD Guest Blog Post on Supporting HF 234
• MN Referendum History (Scroll to Referendum Analysis)
• House Education Finance Audio from April 4, 2013

The following AMSD Guest Blog Post was submitted by Jerry Von Korff, School Board Member, St. Cloud Area School District.

On Thursday, April 4, the House Education Finance Committee, chaired by Representative Paul Marquart, will be holding a hearing on Representative Jerry Newton’s HF 234, which would authorize school boards to renew an existing operating referendum.   Like many of you, I’ve spent thousands of hours, literally, working to pass and repass my local school district’s operating referendum.   Twice, I served as referendum chair, marshaling community volunteer support to convince fellow citizens to provide needed financial support.

I submit this guest post to encourage you to write a short note to the House Education Finance Committee, and to your own local legislator to support HF234 to grant locally elected school boards the authority extend operating referendums when the expire.  The following points reiterate the need for passage of HF 234.

• Renewal of Operating Referendum Revenue is Necessary.   For most districts in Minnesota operating referendums are absolutely necessary revenue sources without which we cannot meet our constitutional responsibility to provide education, which the state requires us to deliver.  Since 1986, the percentage of districts requiring operating referenda has risen from 47 to 90 plus percent.   In the last 10 years, the percentage of general revenue supplied by referendum in the Twin Cities has risen from 3% to 14%.   In the suburban metro ring it has risen from 8 to 16%.  In regional centers like St. Cloud it has risen from 3% to 10%.  We understand the temptation to sweep away this problem by trying to make referendums go away.  But under the Governor’s budget, that is not an option: the reliance on referendum revenue will continue to grow and the failure of an existing referendum could destroy a school district.

• Special Education Cross Subsidy is Crippling School Districts.   Operating referendums are needed to address the funding shortfall caused by the rising cost of special education and the nearly $700 million annual deficit in funding that is imposing a crushing financial burden on school districts.  Since 2005, the Minneapolis cross subsidy has risen from $540 to $905 per student.  White Bear Lake’s cross subsidy has risen from $462 to $877.   Duluth’s has risen from $422 to $801.  Our own cross subsidy in St. Cloud has risen to about $8 million, or more than $800 per student.  That means that we are taking nearly 20% of the basic formula to fund the state’s special education deficit.     Governor Dayton’s budget proposes additional funding for special education but in the big picture, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the magnitude of the overall cross-subsidy.

• In many districts referendum passage is uncertain and speculative.  Defeat of an operating referendum can throw a school district into a financial tailspin.  The possibility that a referendum will be defeated means that we cannot plan effectively.  It means that major basic programs are at risk for sudden cancellation.  Because this revenue is critical to our mission, the elected school board should have the authority to renew.   Voters lack command of the details of school budgets.  They react based upon transitory sentiment.  An increasing percentage of our voters have no children in school, and a significant number of our parents are now immigrants who have no vote at all.

Cities and Counties have the authority to decide whether to levy taxes for their operating needs.  America is a representative democracy, because our founders recognized that those we elect to public office should have the authority – subject to public accountability – to manage the fiscal affairs of local government.

The time we spend volunteering, fund raising, and campaigning could better be used volunteering in schools, mentoring, and fund raising for scholarships, field trips and other school programs.   HF 234 would restore a measure of fiscal stability to our school districts.  Take some time to contact your legislator and support this important bill.

Details of the Hearing:

House Education Finance Committee

Thursday, April 4, 2013

8:15am

Room 10 of the State Office Building

House Education Finance Committee Contact List

Find Your Local Legislator

Issue of the Week: DFL House leaders reiterate the need to invest in full-day kindergarten at a press conference held in the North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale School District.

Why it Matters:

• The Education Finance Omnibus bills will be released the week of April 8.  Both the House and Senate leadership have indicated funding for full-day kindergarten is a top priority.
• According to the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE), in 2010 41% of the state’s kindergarten students enrolled part-time (half-day daily, full-day alternate, full-day 3 days/week), 44% attended full-day daily and 15% enrolled full-day daily with a parent fee.
• According to 2011-2012 MDE enrollment data, there were 64, 123 kindergarten students, of these students 21,368 were eligible for free lunch and 4,570 were eligible for reduced lunch.
• North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale is in its seventh year of full-day, every day kindergarten.  The district reports overall reading MCA proficiency gains of 8%, while reducing the race based achievement gap by over 10% across all subgroups.  Math MCA scores have risen by 5.5% and again race based gaps have closed by nearly 10%. There has also been a drop in the percentage of students receiving special education services since the implementation of full-day, every day kindergarten.

Further Reading and Information

• DFL House leaders push for all-day kindergarten, Minnesota Public Radio
• DFL lawmakers pitch universal all-day kindergarten, Kare 11
• All-Day, Everyday Kindergarten Has Momentum at Minnesota Capitol, Roseville Patch
• Push For All-Day Kindergarten Met With Questions, CBS
• AMSD Guest Blog Post on All-Day Kindergarten, AMSD