Search just this section

Home > News & Events > 2009 News > 2004-2008 News	Print View

Education funding overhaul meets up with pesky reality
9/24/2008 12:00 AM

Marc Ingber, MN Sun Newspapers

At a Sept. 11 public hearing in Hopkins for a major education-funding reform bill, idealism clashed with reality.

Members of the House K-12 Finance Division recently presented the highlights of HF 4178, which is designed to simplify and increase state public-school funding in Hopkins.

No one in attendance - which included superintendents, school board members, administrators, teachers and parents from several west metro districts - spoke out against the bill. But it wasn't until the last few minutes that one parent asked the obvious question - how much is it going to cost the state?

In doing so, the up-until-then rousing public hearing ended on a down note. The proposal is expected to cost the state about $1.7 billion annually in additional funding for schools.

On top of that, Rep. Pat Garofalo, R-Farmington, pointed out that the state wasn't exactly sitting on an excess pile of cash. Many legislators aren't interested in talking about the state's budget deficit right now with an election coming up, he said, but an estimated $1-billion shortfall was in reality a "big understatement."

He told the crowd that, following the election, residents were going to see the "roof cave in" in terms of the state budget.

This is where the reality part comes in. I would doubt that many would argue with the merits of HF 4178. For one it would simplify the education-funding formula, which is badly needed.

Under the existing system, students are counted for funding as "adjusted-marginal-cost pupil units," which are "weighted" by grade level. That means some students count less than one "pupil," while others count more. The proposed new law would count all students, including kindergarteners, as one pupil and increase the basic funding-formula allowance from $5,124 per adjusted-marginal-cost pupil unit to $7,500 per pupil to cover districts' "basic instruction needs."

The education-funding formula is amazingly complicated and will likely still be complicated if HF 4178 passes, but less so.

The bill would also tie the funding formula to the inflation rate and includes a "location equity index" that increases funding for districts in counties with "above-average" cost of living. Further, it would fully fund the state's share of special-education costs and restore equalization in the school property-tax system, according to Education Committee members.

At the public hearing, several metro superintendents spoke about how the fate of their districts was tied too heavily to local operating levies. Operating levies - which most often require community approval via a referendum vote - provide school district funding above the level the state provides.

Those in attendance at the public hearing basically learned that it's going to cost Minnesota taxpayers an extra $1.7 billion annually for the state to fund public education the way it should have been all along. I hate to speak for the masses, but I'm guessing "Joe Taxpayer" isn't in the mood to cover those extra costs in the current state of the economy.

But on the other hand, no parents want to see the school district their child attends on the decline. I would think that education is a priority that is near the top of most parents' lists, which leads me to believe a bill such as HF 4178 does have a shot of passing -even in these troubling economic times.

Is it fair to the public that residents will have to shell out more money just to get their local school districts back up to par? No - but ideal situations and reality rarely meet. It's up to the public whether it wants to make up the difference.

http://www.mnsun.com/articles/2008/09/25/opinion/fw25edfundingcolumn.txt