Policy Blog
« Property Taxes and School Funding | Main | Policy topics for Minnesota Journal? »
December 1, 2006
Education funding in Minnesota
Last night I went to an education policy conference sponsored by P.S. Minnesota, a statewide coalition of parents and education organizations to recently finished some research on developing a new school funding framework for the state of Minnesota.
The framework incorporates:
- a "learner component" (how much it costs to educate a student, including full-day kindergarten and accounting for adjustments made for "at risk" students. English Language Learners and special ed students),
- a "district instructional services" component that includes adjustments for the size of the district (small districts have higher marginal costs than larger districts), location cost (it costs more to run a school in Edina than in Sauk Rapids), and declining enrollments (when a student leaves a district, the district loses funding for that student but retains some of the cost), and
- a "district support services component" that covers facilities maintenance, technology support, transportation, desegregation and targeted initiatives.
In addition, the framework allows for additional levy authority for school boards and voters.
(Click here to see the full framework and the research that supports it.)
What I found most interesting about the framework was their decision to work in the "real state." They didn't take up any of the debates about how (and how much) teachers are paid, how district budgets are spent, and so on. They just looked at what a good funding formula would look like, regardless of how the money is spent once it is allocated.
It's a very rational way to tackle a challenge like this, but they are going to have a hard time getting anywhere with a new funding formula unless we also address the underlying concerns with how public education is done in Minnesota. At some point during the presentations last night, one of the speakers said that if the funding formula P.S. Minnesota suggested were adopted, it would cost the state an additional $1 billion (approximately). As we showed in our recent MAP 150 policy survey, citizens are skeptical about the current and future success of public education -- and they are not going to be eager to support $1 billion in extra funding without some assurance that their money will be spent wisely and effectively.
Posted by Victoria Ford at December 1, 2006 11:05 AM
Comments
Victoria,
Thanks for the thoughts on the PS Minnesota proposal.
I received an important lesson about public perception of school financing recently when a relative lamented that no matter how much we spend, the outcomes continue to suffer in public schools. I offered two points that I think address some of the political difficulty you describe:
1 - Because of the way equalization in Minnesota works and recent state policy decisions, the amount of state aid as a percent of total K12 funding has diminished. It's deeply frustrating for voters to have the sense that they continue to dump property tax dollars into the schools and the funding gets "gobbled up." But in Minnesota's recent history, it's been gobbled up not by the school districts but by the desire to balance the state budget without appearing to raise revenues. And, of course, this creates benefits for certain individuals and organizations in the political environment.
2 - In private schools that use a relatively similar, traditional learning environment, the investment per pupil is up to 2-2.5x what it is in the public schools. For example, Breck, Blake and SPA spend an unweighted $23,000-25,000 per pupil to educate students, while the districts within which they operate spent between 45% and 51% of that, respectively. The private schools are spending unwisely - they are charging tuition to raise the funds necessary to provide a top-quality education.
Proponents of public education are trying to do the same thing.
Of course, these are my individual opinions only.
Thanks for the forum!
Posted by: Jon Commers | December 18, 2006 4:43 PM
I said above that private schools are spending unwisely - I definitely meant to say that they are NOT spending unwisely. Just wanted to clarify.
Posted by: Jon Commers | December 19, 2006 3:07 PM