SEE Notes

2012-01-26T18:12:00.000-08:00

Things Get a Bit Spicy Today. Both the House education-related hearings featured some rhetorical wrangling and a lot of spirited discussion. It started out this morning in the Education Reform Committee with Representative Andrea Kieffer's (R-Woodbury) HF 1770, the companion to Senator Ted Daley's (R-Eagan) SF 1493. This bill would require that college students wanting to be teachers would have to pass a basic skills test before they could be admitted to an accredited teacher preparation program.

The sticking point in the discussion came when an amendment was offered by Representative Kory Kath (DFL-Owatonna). Representative Kath's amendment proposed to give the higher education institution attended by the student the leeway to determine when the test would be administered and only require that teaching candidates pass the basic skills test before they graduated from the teaching preparation program. Both sides went at it and made good points. It's not like the basic skills test is rocket science, but at the same time, a number of colleges require teaching candidates to declare their intention to enter the teaching preparation program during their sophomore year, which is earlier than when a number of candidates take a college math course. Ultimately, the amendment passed by one vote, which didn't please a number of the majority members of the committee. What happens from this point both with the bill and this particular amendment remains to be seen, but my guess is we'll see more debate on this point as we move forward.

The afternoon hearing centered on the early childhood scholarship program. The committee heard HF 1828 authored by Representative Paul Anderson (R-Starbuck), which would require that 50% of the revenue dedicated to the early childhood scholarship program be dedicated to programs outside the seven-county metropolitan area. One of the problems with the program from the Legislature's perspective is that rural programs get shortchanged. The bill was laid over for possible exclusion in the omnibus education funding bill.

The remainder of the committee time was dedicated to a presentation by the Minnesota Department of Education regarding its vision for the early childhood scholarship program and the early childhood education in general. Dr. Karen Cadigan, director of the Early Learning Center at the department provided the bulk of the Department's testimony.

In many ways, the discussion was a holdover from the close of last session. A number of legislators object to the quality rating system, a provision that was part of the original early childhood bill last session, but eliminated by amendment on the House floor. The quality rating system was implemented unilaterally by the Governor after the special session concluded last summer over the objections of legislators. One can only conjecture as to why so many object to the quality rating system, but it appears that most of the objections arise from an assertion that it discriminates against small family daycare providers and providers aligned with religious institutions.

So, as in the case of last year, the policy territory is being staked out and the differences are as vast as they were last session. The primary comfort this year is that nothing has to pass. It would be nice if a number of things did pass, but budget questions aren't hanging over the Legislature's head this session, which makes things much easier to accept.

2012-01-25T19:24:00.000-08:00

No Hearings Today. The Legislature took the day off, taking a field trip over to the University of Minnesota to attend their annual joint conference, but that doesn't mean it was necessarily a slow news day. The Wilfs met with the Governor to discuss the proposal to build a new Vikings' stadium on the Metrodome site. There was a call for increased inspection of slot machines and blackjack games at Minnesota's native American casinos. And Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann announced that she will be seeking another term. Not that any of this has much to do with the education debate taking place in Minnesota, but it does show that the pace will be heady throughout the session.

If you were to back me into a corner and make me guess when the session will be over, I would say by Easter, which falls in the first week of April this year. Much will depend on the February budget forecast, but if projections stay within the normal range, there will be little appetite to do anything much with "found" money except perhaps provide some property tax relief. Further, the new legislative district maps will be released on February 21 and a number of legislators will probably want to scope out their new district boundaries as soon as they are announced. So, at least in my estimation, there will be an up-or-down vote on a stadium proposal, some wrangling over policy that will likely result in some high-profile vetoes, and a mass exit in early April.

As Colin Quinn used to say when he hosted Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live, "That's my story and I'm sticking to it."

Mindy Greiling Not Seeking Re-election. It was a bit of a surprise when Representative Mindy Greiling (DFL-Roseville) announced that she won't be seeking re-election this November. Representative Greiling chaired the House Education Funding Division for four years and was truly an education leader. Her insight and energy on education issues will be missed.

Greiling is the second prominent education leader in the Legislature to announce their intention not to seek re-election. Senator Gen Olson (R-Minnetrista), the current chair of the Senate Education Committee, announced last year that she will not be seeking another term. With the loss of these two legislators, Minnesota's education community will be missing two very strong voices.

Congratulations! I wanted to get this in the blog while it was still fresh news. Congratulations to Kala Henkensiefken, the transportation director for Brainerd Area Schools, for being named the Minnesota Association for Pupil Transportation's Director of the Year. Kala does a tremendous job for the Brainerd district and is also a leader in the school transportation industry, chairing MAPT's special education transportation committee and helping organize the annual Train the Trainer workshop. She is certainly deserving of this award.

2012-01-24T19:20:00.000-08:00

We're Rolling. Spirited discussion was the order of the day in several venues at the State Capitol as the 2012 Leigslative Session got underway. Perhaps the most spirited discussion took place in the Senate Rules Committee, where the 5% cut to the Senate operating budget (as agreed upon in last year's budget deal) was enacted. Under the plan, all of the approximately $440,000 in cuts would come out of the DFL caucus staff. Needless to say, the spirit of bipartisanship wasn't in evidence during the hearing.

Here is a MNPost link to the story: http://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2012/01/24/34584/opening_days_amicable_mood_abruptly_changed_when_gop_cut_dfl_senators_budget

Education Hearings. Both education-related hearings had their share of interesting discussion as well. The House Education Funding Committee heard Representative Kelby Woodard's (R-Belle Plaine) HF 1860, a bill that would require that the levy portion of a resident student's general education revenue accompany the student to a charter school, provided the charter school was located in the resident school district.

I testified against the bill for a couple of reasons. First, so many SEE school districts fall well below the state average in per pupil revenue and because of this, they seek additional revenue through voter-approved referenda. Diverting even a small amount of revenue from cash-strapped districts would be extremely damaging and HF 1860 would divert revenue. The second reason I testified against the bill is that changes like the one proposed should be discussed within a broader range of reforms and not as an isolated proposal. Charter schools may need more revenue, but so do traditional schools and simply moving revenue around between the two systems doesn't serve the whole education system effectively. The bill was laid on the table for possible inclusion in the 2012 omnibus bill.

The Senate Education Committee dealt with Senator Ted Daley's (R-Eagan) SF 1493, a bill that would require that prospective teachers pass a set of basic skills tests before they could enroll in a teacher preparation program. This bill passed the Senate last session, but amendments added to the bill in the House triggered a gubernatorial veto. The discussion centered around the issue of teacher quality versus the goal of recruiting a broad range of teaching candidates to instruct children. The bill was, as in the case of the House bill in the House committee, laid on the table for possible inclusion in the omnibus education bill.

The entire Legislature will be attending a conference tomorrow, but they will be back at it Thursday. Don't worry, I'll find something to write about tomorrow.

2012-01-23T18:02:00.000-08:00

On Your Mark. Get Set. BLOG!!!! Here we sit on Session Eve awaiting the start of the 2012 Legislative Session. The session officially gets underway at noon tomorrow with organizing sessions in both Houses. A light slate of committee meetings is also in the offing, including hearings in the House Education Funding Committee and the Senate Education Committee.

The House Education Committee will be considering Representative Woodard's (R-Belle Plaine) HF 1860 (Link: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1860.0.html&session=ls87), a bill that would mandate that charter schools receive the referendum revenue attributable to a student in a school district who attends a charter school located in the same school district. I have yet to see the data runs to determine how many districts and charter schools this would affect and the effect would certainly vary widely throughout the state. Obviously, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Anoka-Hennepin districts would see a considerable reduction in their revenue due to their size, but undoubtedly a number of small to mid-size districts could also see crippling reductions.

The challenge for affected SEE districts is that due to the failure of the current array of categorical formulas to generate considerable revenue (all but six SEE school districts have general education revenue per pupil below the state average). Because this is the case, SEE districts often have to pass referenda to make up for the lack of funding generated through categorical formulas. This would make the "leakage" of any revenue difficult to swallow.

The Senate Education Committee will be discussing SF 1493 (Link:https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S1493.0.html&session=ls87), a bill authored by Senator Daley (R-Eagan) that would require prospective teachers to pass a basic skills test in reading, writing, and mathematics before they could enter a college of education in pursuit of a teaching license.

Nothing like getting the session off to a quiet, non-controversial start.

Interesting Article in the Sunday New York Times. This past Sunday's New York Times included it's quarterly "Education Life" section and, as usual, it contained a number of interesting a thought-provoking articles. The article I found most interesting was one penned by former Harvard President and Presidential economic adviser Lawrence Summers. Summers' article, entitled "What You (Really) Need to Know" contained a number of observations of how the pursuit of knowledge has changed and how the skills of collaboration and data analysis have become increasingly important in today's economy.

I don't know if this link will work successfully as a registration (and perhaps a subscription) is required to view articles, but here's hoping it works, as it's a very well-written and pertinent article.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/education/edlife/the-21st-century-education.html?scp=1&sq=lawrence%20summers&st=cse

2011-09-20T14:32:00.000-07:00

Thanks Commissioner. Commissioner Brenda Cassellius gets a double thank-you for (1) appearing at our SEE general membership meeting last Friday and doing a great job sharing her insights with us, and (2) for writing a great opinion piece in Sunday's St. Paul Pioneer Press. As everyone knows by now, the fact that some school districts are seeking increased revenue through ballot questions this fall has raised the hackles of a few legislators who believe (sincerely) that enough revenue was delivered to school districts in the 2011 omnibus education funding bill that districts should not need to seek more revenue.

As I wrote on the blog last week, there are a lot of reasons to dispute (politely) the assertions of these legislators and I'm not going to re-hash them. It was great to see Commissioner Cassellius weigh in on the issue as well in her opinion piece. I am especially appreciative of the line near the end of the piece where the Commissioner writes: "Minnesota's Constitution requires the state - not local school boards - to provide a "uniform system of public schools through taxation or other means." That constitutional mandate for uniformity is threatened as the quality of a child's education is growing increasingly dependent upon which zip code he or she lives in, the property wealth of that community, and the district's ability to pass a levy."

St. Paul Pioneer Press link: http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_18912674

Thanks once again Commissioner!

More Property Tax Consternation. One of the hottest items of discussion since the end of the legislative session deals with the elimination of the homestead credit and its replacement with a homestead market value exclusion. The homestead credit was based on a calculation made at the state level that went directly to local units of government in the form of an aid against local property taxes. While separate from local government aid, it achieved a similar purpose in holding down local property taxes by supplying local units of government with state revenue. The homestead credit was first slated for phase-out and eventual repeal as part of Governor Ventura's "Big Plan" passed in 2001, but subsequent Legislatures extended the date of repeal. This year, the Legislature acted to finish it off. This was part of the initial tax bill that found its way to the Governor's desk and was vetoed and there is some verbal wrangling going on between the branches of government over whose "fault" this is.

Due to the elimination of the homestead credit, property taxes will rise by an estimated $261 million for Pay 2012. Where the increased burden will fall has not yet been calculated, but it will hit business property throughout the state harder than residential property, as the new homestead market value exclusion will take some portion of home value off the property tax rolls and pushing relatively more burden onto business property. The bottom line is, however, that everyone's property taxes will be going up and it will be a result of legislative action and not that of local units of government. It will be Christmas in November when those property tax notices hit the mailboxes!

Laurie Blake from the Minneapolis StarTribune outlines the policy change in this article. Needless to say, higher property taxes is just about the last thing that's needed in local units of government where the property tax sensitivity is already high. Stay tuned. I'll fill you in as more details become available.

StarTribune link: http://www.startribune.com/local/130092028.html

2011-09-12T18:43:00.000-07:00

Legislative Heat Over Levy Proposals. Paraphrasing the old saw "As goes Maine, so goes the nation," I guess when it comes to legislative opposition to this falls excess levy questions, it looks like it's "As goes Drazkowski, so goes Garofalo." Approximately two weeks ago, an e-mail was circulated by Representative Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa) to his e-mail update subscribers outlining his assertion that school boards should withdraw their requests for voter-approved referendum levy increases this fall (the e-mail was vague on whether or not school boards should give the same consideration to straight referendum levy renewals where no increase was requested and I believe the Representative was not opposing those efforts). Central to Representative Drazkowski's case is his contention that school districts got enough revenue during the 2011 legislative session and that additional revenue generated through voter-approved levies is not needed.

Today, House Education Funding Chair Pat Garofalo (R-Farmington) echoed Drazkowski's sentimments in a story on Minnesota Public Radio. Garofalo was clear that he thought straight renewals in which no additional revenue was being sought should be approved, but like Drazkowski, he firmly believes that sufficient revenue was provided to school districts over the coming biennium, which negates the need for further locally-approved increases.

How are they mistaken? Let me count the ways. First off, while education did receive increases this past session (and the additional revenue was greatly appreciated), the lion's share of that revenue came through the automatic increase in the special education funding base revenue categories (basic and excess). A $50 per pupil unit per year increase in the basic formula was also included in the bill, but the rationale behind that move was to help school districts with the increased borrowing costs they will likely incur as a result of the increase in the aid payment shift. There was also additional revenue in the second year of the biennium delivered through the newly-established literacy aid and small schools revenue programs, as well as some one-time money to a variety of districts. So there is new money--considerable new money--but most of this money came through an increase in the special education formulas, which still won't be enough to totally defray additional special education costs in most school districts.

Second--and this has been an almost decade-long position of SEE--is that the level of funding accorded to school districts has no direct correlation to the true cost of education. A number of studies have been done over the past two decades trying to at least estimate the cost of educating a child in Minnesota and those studies all show at one level or another that Minnesota's education funding system is underfunded. Related to this problem is the fact that education funding from 2003 until the past session has been on a roller coaster. Two bienniums during the past decade saw healthy increases in either the basic or special education formula, but other than those exceptions, funding was fairly flat. There is no question that the basic formula has not kept up with inflation since the early 1990s and districts have been trying to play catch up, with voter-approved referenda being the only route to close the gap between the level of funding needed and the level actually needed.

Third, each district in the state has a different set of circumstances under which they attempt to pass a referendum levy. A number of districts are experiencing declining enrollment or, due to the housing crisis, not growing at the rate at which the estimated in the mid-1990s. In many cases, the decline in pupil numbers more than outweighs any increase in the basic formula, with districts coming up short in terms of revenue. Even in districts enjoying growth, there are often additional costs related to that growth in terms of increased transportation costs and capital needs and formula increases might not be enough to address those cost pressures.

Finally, it seems that some sing the praises of local control, but then decry it when local units of government attempt to employ it. I spoke with St. Cloud Times reporter Dave Aeikens this afternoon and expounded on this angle as he interviewed me for a story. School districts do not relish going before the voters for additional revenue, especially during these difficult economic times. The thought that goes into these ballot questions is considerable both in terms of how much revenue is sought and how the proposal is framed.

While I disagree with Representatives Drazkowski and Garofalo, they are certainly entitled to their opinion. School districts often seek the support of their local legislators when the try to pass referenda, so it would be hypocritical to tell legislators that they can't voice their concerns about or flat-out oppose these questions. I'm disappointed that these legislators aren't pointing out that most of the state-delivered increase is simply an updating of base level formula expenditures and instead make it look like every district in the state are in tall cotton. Needless to say, they've kicked off the discussion that will be taking place over the next seven weeks.

Here are some stories related to this topic:

MinnPost: http://www.minnpost.com/learningcurve/2011/09/08/31425/accounting_trick_explains_minnesota_schools_so-called_windfall

MPR: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/09/12/republican-lawmakers-school-levies/

2011-09-06T19:06:00.000-07:00

School's In for Fall! Alice Cooper only recorded "School's Out" and for the life of me, I can't think of any song that hails the start of the new school year, but, accompanied by an anthem-quality song or not, the lion's share of Minnesota school districts began their 2011-2012 school year today.

I hope you all got off to a great start this morning. I'm sure that there was a stranded child here or there, likely due to an unmailed request for transportation, and my guess is a number of students, especially those entering high school or junior high, bounced around the hallways a bit in search of their hourly destinations. But that's to be expected.

What has also come to be expected is a political sparring match as class-sizes continue to go up while course offerings continue to dwindle. That the Minnesota education system is underfunded should come as no surprise to those who have been watching over the past couple of decades. Numerous studies, including one initiated by then-Governor Pawlenty in 2003, have shown that the basic formula has not kept pace with inflation. I will give critics of the current system their due in agreeing that the level of underfunding is based on the traditional system of education delivery and that some changes could reduce costs. That said, the level of underfunding is so dramatic (check out this graph from the SEE website: http://www.schoolsforequity.org/files/40608084.pdf), that no amount of reform save for sending about 20% of the kids home would put a dent into the funding shortfall.

New Cannon Falls' Superintendent Beth Giese sent me two articles today, one of which discusses the funding issues facing Minnesota schools. You can see several SEE schools listed in the story, which outlines fairly accurately the challenges being faced by a number of Minnesota school districts. Link: http://www.startribune.com/local/129240583.html

DFL house members held a press conference today, maligning former Governor Pawlenty and the Republican-controlled Legislature for failing to adequately fund schools and delaying payments to schools to balance the state budget. The House DFLers are planning a string of town hall meetings in school districts throughout the state to discuss the issue.

Here's a blurb from the StarTribune's Hot Dish Politics blog outlining the press conference. Link: http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/129316618.html

And here's a Pat Kessler Reality Check from the Channel 4 six o'clock news regarding the issue.

Link: http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/09/06/reality-check-whos-to-blame-over-education-funding/

The other article from the StarTribune that Superintendent Giese sent me deals with the elimination of the market value homestead credit (a state aid to local units of government) and its replacement with the newly-established market value exclusion. The net result of this exchange will be an increase in property taxes for pretty much everyone in the state, but property taxes in low-property wealth areas will increase more than they will in high value areas. This was one of the things that former Representative (and current judge) Ron Abrams, who represented Western Hennepin County, wanted to do and a phase-out was included in Governor Ventura's "Big Plan" of 2001. Well the proverbial something-or-other hit the metaphorical fan this past session and this exchange was made.

Because SEE is largely composed of school districts with much higher levels of property tax sensitivity than higher wealth districts, this is an issue of great importance to the organization. I will be spending a lot of time as the organization prepares for the 2012 legislative session working to find ways to mitigate the negative effects of this change.

Here is a link to the article by Jim Anderson regarding the elimination of the market value homestead credit. Link: http://www.startribune.com/local/east/129270323.html.

2011-07-22T13:41:00.000-07:00

A Bit of a Different Angle Today. Before I delve into the teacher evaluation piece of the bill omnibus education policy bill passed on Tuesday night/Wednesday morning, I wanted to blog about two money items that found their way into the bill. In Article 1, there are two sections (Sections 17 and Section 36, Subdivision 10) that distribute revenue to select sets of school districts.

Section 17 is the newly-established small schools revenue that will be part of the general education formula. Districts (charter schools are not eligible) with less than 1,000 pupil units will receive revenue on a sliding scale (the further a district is below 1,000 students the more revenue it will receive) with a maximum benefit of approximately $522 per pupil unit (this example would be the extreme case as it would be a district with one student). Cyrus is estimated to be the smallest school district in the state with an adjusted marginal cost pupil count of 36 during the 2012-2013 school year, making its benefit approximately $501 per pupil. The small schools revenue formula will be a permanent part of the general education formula going forward. While I'm not nuts about it one way or the other and it will augment current sparsity revenue for a number of districts, I am aware that smaller districts have higher marginal costs per pupil and this formula should be helpful in meeting those needs.

Subdivision 10 of Section 36 proposes a formula to distribute one-time money to the 20 largest districts in the state by augmenting the compensatory formula for any of these districts that currently receive less than 1,400 per pupil in compensatory revenue (in other words, every district in the top 20 in terms of student population except for Minneapolis and St. Paul).

There is an interesting dynamic at play here, especially at the bottom of the top twenty. For the current school year, Stillwater ranks 20th and Minnetonka ranks 21st in terms of students served. According to the February forecast, those two districts change places for the 2012-2013 school year. I find it a bit odd that a swing of 111 students to the good for Minnetonka and 325 in the opposite direction for Stillwater is going to cost Stillwater a gigantic chunk of change. I guess that shows what advertising on MPR will do for a district and why having a huge charter school in your district siphoning off students isn't. It's also a bit of a thumb in the eye, given Minnetonka is a district--and the only one in the top 20 in terms of student count for 2013--that is over the current referendum cap and Stillwater is more than $400 per pupil below the cap. I'm not saying Minnetonka doesn't need more revenue (all districts do), but it just kind of smacks of lunacy. Of course, it's not the 2012-2013 school year yet and who know what each district's pupil count will be when that rolls around.

I'm not going to go on-and-on about these two provisions, but they show once again why there is a need for comprehensive funding reform that achieves both greater adequacy and greater equity. What we see here are two piecemeal solutions that aim to do something in terms of funding needs for two distinctly different sets of districts. I'm not going to cry "#$!^*#+!@ POLITICS!" because this is no more partisan or political than what's been going on since 1858. Education funding, both in terms of level and distribution, is an extremely political process. Maybe someday I'll write a book about it, but for now, just take my word for it.

What is frustrating is that once again, the bulk of low-property wealth districts throughout the state find themselves on the outside looking in when it comes to revenue delivered through the framework of state and local education funding formulas. For the past school year, the state average per pupil general education funding was $7,046. For the top 20 districts in terms of student population, it was $7,364 (all four SEE members in this group are well below this average and all but one below the state average as well). The per pupil average for those districts below 1,000 pupil units is $7,019 per pupil. For SEE members--all but three with more than 1,000 and only four in the top 20 pupil unit count for the 2010-2011 school year--the average is $6,570.

I'm not going to go off on a Dennis Miller rant here. Even with the 60/40 shift, the education community made out better than a lot of other parts of state government this past session. The $50 per pupil unit increases in both years of the biennium are welcome. The new literacy aid program will send new revenue to all districts in the state. Maintaining current law growth factors for special education is important and welcome. The maintenance of local government aid at current law levels will also help a number of SEE districts by preventing the property tax atmosphere from becoming even more hostile and disadvantageous when compared to higher wealth areas. So it isn't all bad.

But it is still frustrating that the King Kong-sized gorilla in the room is being ignored. SEE districts continue to fall behind for two very specific reasons. First, the array of general education formulas continues to become more concerned about differences that exist between districts as opposed to having the basic formula be a closer reflection to the cost necessary to fully educate a student in the 21st century. Second, the failure to have the equalization factors for the referendum and debt service programs keep pace with property growth makes the referendum a less viable tool for low property wealth districts with each passing year.

Briefly, the plight of low property wealth school districts remains largely unsolved. After a lot of progress in the early 1990s in working to equalize property tax levies, low property wealth districts are now facing increasing challenges in both of their standing in terms of state formulas and an increasingly unbalanced property tax system and it's been hard for us to get our hands back on the dice.

2011-07-20T12:55:00.000-07:00

Summary Part Deux. On to the reform part of the discussion. As many of you recall, HF 934 and HF 1381 (the two legislative conference committee reports that were vetoed) contained a plethora of measures that, in the eyes of legislative leadership, aimed to reform Minnesota's education system. The "Florida Agenda" (A-F grading system, opportunity scholarships for students in chronically under-performing schools, and retention of third-grade students who do not pass the third-grade reading test) and teacher evaluation were large parts of those two bills.

I don't know if I would put the elimination of integration revenue and the transfer of state revenue in that program to a statewide literacy program into the reform category, but it clearly re-focused a significant portion of state revenue into a, if not different, more refined focus.

SF 934 also incorporated comprehensive changes into the teacher bargaining process, by limiting the months in which school districts could bargain with teachers, creating a process by which school districts could force employees into binding arbitration, and putting the "qualified economic offer" process into law.

So, how did these items fare? The "Florida Agenda" headed south faster than a Minnesota snowbird in November. Where some agreement in terms of the literacy portion of that agenda was reached was in the creation of a more formalized set of standards and procedures that make reading proficiently be the end of third grade a more clearly defined priority. Under the bill approved last night, every school district must adopt a plan to have every child reading at or above grade level no later than the end of third grade and further requires districts to provide reading intervention to accelerate student growth.

The teacher bargaining changes, except for the repeal of the January 15 negotiating deadline and aid penalty, did not survive the negotiations between the Legislature and the Governor.

The place where some change may be coming is in the area of integration revenue. The initial legislative initiative on integration revenue that was part of the vetoed education funding bill called for an elimination of the aid portion of the program, effective for FY 13 (the 2012-2013 school year). Districts participating in integration efforts would have been able to continue to collect the levy portion of the program, but the aid would have been transferred into a statewide literacy incentive aid program.

In the agreement reached earlier this week and approved yesterday, the integration revenue program as we know it will be sunset after FY 13. In the meantime, the Commissioner of Education is directed to convene a 12-member task force to develop recommendations for re-purposing integration revenue. The task force's report will be submitted to the Legislature by February 15, 2012. While the current integration revenue program was extended an additional year, the final agreement did create the statewide literacy incentive aid program, which will expend $29.1 million (total entitlement is $48.6 million adjusted for 60%/40% payment schedule--get used to doing those calculations) during the 2012-2013 school year. This aid will be distributed to each district on the basis of $85 times the percent a district's of third graders meeting or exceeding proficiency in the third grade reading MCA and $85 times a district's percent of fourth graders making medium or high growth on the reading MCA.

The inclusion of literacy incentives aid is a coup of sorts for the Senate and is a bit of a surprise in view of the fact that it was initially funded through the elimination of integration aid. With integration surviving for an additional year, I was surprised that this program was also established given the budget constraints. Of all the reforms in this year's bill, I believe this one will have the greatest effect on the education system. It fits comfortably with the literacy plan requirement, but in order for all of these gears to work together, proper training and staff development are going to be key.

As someone who has long had interest in response-to-intervention and other research-based reading programs, I believe that both the framework set up in the bill to promote reading by third grade and the aid program to provide districts with the funding necessary to properly promote this goal will go a long way in strengthening achievement in the early grades and ultimately lead to greater student success as students continue through the system.

I'll be writing about the teacher evaluation section of the bill in my next entry.

2011-07-20T08:30:00.001-07:00

Summary Part 1. I don't know how many summary and/or perspective entries I am going to post on the 2011 E-12 funding and policy bill, but it's going to be more than just this one. There is a lot in the bill; some of it to laud, some of it to bemoan, and some of it to simply accept as part of what had to be an agonizing negotiating process on the part of the chairs of the education committee and the administration.

Regardless of how one feels about the increase in the shift to 60%/40% (I hate it), it's impossible to dismiss this bill as a total pox upon the state's education community. There are some good things in the bill. For those of us who have ridden the state budget roller coaster over the past decade, we remember the 2003 session when education was funded not at current law base levels, but well below them. In 2003, the basic formula remained flat and the special education growth factors were repealed, making the only increase school districts would receive dependent on whether or not their free-and-reduced price lunch numbers had grown or if they could add to their existing (or non-existent) operating levy authority. This bill does put $50 per pupil on the formula in each of the next two years and while a good chunk of that is going to go to helping pay interest costs on borrowing, it could have been worse (I'm going to be saying that a lot for the next few weeks and months).

The bill also retains the special education growth factors at the current law levels of 4.6% for the basic program and 2.0% for the excess cost formula. Special education costs continue to rise and, as all of you know from my years of preaching on the subject, moving money out of special education only increases the cross-subsidy from the general fund to pay for special education costs. The most responsible way to deal with special education funding is to have as much funding for special education programs come through the basic special education formula in an attempt to keep a lid on the cross-subsidy from the general fund and it's heartening to see the Legislature and Governor take that approach.

There is also a considerable amount of mandate relief in the bill without (at least at first glance) a mountain of new mandates replacing those that have been removed (which is far too often the case). The mandates being repealed or modified are:

The January 15th negotiating deadline and aid penalty (repealed).
The maintenance-of-effort provision in the safe schools levy for counselors, social workers, psychiatrists, and school nurses (repealed).
A two-year suspension of the 2% staff development set-aside (temporary).
An increase in the population necessary for a district to maintain a community education director from 2,000 to 6,000 (modified).
Requires the Commissioner of Education to approve school district fund transfer requests provided said requests do not increase state aid entitlements or local property taxes for the next two fiscal years. Transfers from either the food service or community service funds are not permitted (temporary).

I'll be back with Part 2 in a bit.

2011-07-19T23:53:00.000-07:00

It's 2 AM. And if it were 3 AM, it would be a lyric from a song by Matchbox 20, but beggars can't be choosers at this time of night. At the very least, evoking another lyric from a classic pop tune, we are "in the wee, wee hours of the morning."

The House and Senate have been hard at it since early evening. Both bodies convened at approximately 3 PM and starting working in earnest after a recess. Bills have been filtering onto the House floor ever since (as all of these bills must originate in the House), passing, and then proceeding to the Senate for final approval. The agreement struck between the Governor and legislative leadership stipulated that no amendments would be offered and that agreement has been honored.

Most of the bills, the bonding bill and the Legacy bill the exceptions, have passed on almost exact party-line votes. I have been surprised by the relative lack of speechifying, although the debate on the tax bill qualified as spicy.

The K-12 education finance and policy bill has now been posted and can be found at this link:

Link: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/ss2011/11-3673.pdf

I breezed through it quickly and will give you the following highlights with a more in-depth analysis to follow tomorrow. Here are the most notable aspects of the bill:

$50 per pupil on the formula in each of the next two years. Stated purpose of the increase is to help school districts with increased borrowing costs that will result as the shift is increased to 60%/40%.
Special education funded at current law levels, with growth factors of 4.6% and 2.0% for the basic and excess cost formulas respectively.
Repeal of January 15th negotiating deadline and accompanying aid penalty.
Repeal of the Maintenance of Effort provision in the safe schools formula as it relates to counselors, school nurses, school social workers, and school counselors.
Suspension of the 2% staff development set-aside for the next two years.
Establishment of a small schools formula as part of the general education formula for districts with less than 1,000 students (Charter schools are not eligible to receive revenue under this proposal).
Establishment of a literacy aid program, with half of the aid based on third grade passage rates and half of the aid based on the growth rate between students' third and fourth grade scores.
Teacher and principal evaluation (the teacher evaluation is radically changed from what was contained in HF 934, the omnibus education finance bill passed during the regular session).
Increase in the career and technical levy.

There's a lot more here--the bill runs a full 141 pages--than I thought there would be when the larger budget deal was announced last week. I will go deeper into the bill tomorrow, but I wanted to provide readers with at least a cursory look at the bill tonight.

2011-07-19T09:45:00.000-07:00

And There Now is Something to Report. The special session will start today at 3 PM. No idea whether or not business will be concluded by the end of the day.

The education funding/policy bill has yet to be posted. Below is the site where the bills are being posted as they become available. I will be at the session, so don't hesitate to contact me if you need an update.

Link: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/ss2011/

2011-07-18T14:39:00.001-07:00

Not a Lot New to Report. It's Monday and I thought there was supposed to be a special session. Alas, no such luck and the legislative sausage machine seems to have blown a fuse. And, truth be told, I half-expected things to transpire in this way. There's a ton of information to process and a lot of bargaining remaining.

In presenting his budget earlier this year, the Governor came with pretty much an "as is" budget. He did some cutting, but he also had a fairly hefty tax increase included in his figures. The Legislature passed an "all cuts" budget, which the Governor almost completely rejected. Further, in his veto messages, he pointed out items that he objected to without suggesting alternative measures. This leaves a lot of negotiating to be done.

Many of the provisions to which he has objected are simply non-starters for the Governor and are items that simply aren't going to become law. I can think of several pieces of the Legislature's education package to which the Governor objects and is probably deeming non-negotiable (vouchers, elimination of integration revenue) and my guess that a similar pattern is happening in other budget areas.

I can't say whether this happened or not, but Blois Olson in his Morning Take column reported that Representative Pat Garofalo (R-Farmington), chair of the House Education Finance Committee, blew up a bit during his negotiations with Governor's staff on the education finance bill. Both the House and Senate passed sweeping education reforms this past session and it's my guess that Garofalo's fit of pique (provided the reporting was accurate) likely centers around the administration's reluctance to accept a very abbreviated list (perhaps none) of these reforms.

Headway is being made, as two bills--Public Safety and Transportation--appear be put to bed, but that leaves another 8 to go.

Here is the latest from the StarTribune and MPR on the special session:

StarTribune: http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/125722713.html

MPR: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/07/18/shutdown-budget-agreement-details/

Making Sense of it All. I thought the StarTribune opinion section summed up things nicely yesterday (Sunday) with articles by Lori Sturdevant and D.J. Tice. Lori Sturdevant zeroed in on the need for re-design of how state services are delivered, especially in view of the fact that whoever controls the Legislature after the 2012 elections is likely going to be staring at a deficit and will have even less ability to "move sideways" as this Legislature has.

Tice covers the political fallout and points out that everyone is on a slippery slope after the shutdown, but that the fact that Dayton has three-and-a-half years left on his while the entire Legislature must stand for election in 2012 to accommodate re-districting gives the Governor a bit of an edge. That would be the conventional wisdom, but I don't think anyone comes out of this mess unscathed and my guess is in the more conservative parts of the state, Governor Dayton voodoo dolls may be flying off the shelves.

From my vantage point, the only thing that is most disappointing is that decision-makers chose to punt once again instead finding a middle ground that was palatable to all parties, which is easy for me to say because I'm not in the trenches.

Sturdevant Article: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/125667043.html

Tice Article: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/125667008.html

Monday's MinnPost also did a good job of outlining what lies ahead both in the immediate and short-term futures. Here are three stories that outline some of the issues that are holding things up.

Doug Grow story (not the comments about the education provisions): http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2011/07/18/30096/bogged_down_in_budget_details_two_sides_repeat_a_familiar_refrain_were_close

Jeff Stevens Guntzel story on what happens if LGA is cut (which it will likely be): http://www.minnpost.com/severnsguntzel/2011/07/18/30085/bracing_for_the_next_round_of_lga_cuts_and_property_tax_hikes

Beth Hawkins on affects to school districts: http://www.minnpost.com/learningcurve/2011/07/18/30083/with_budget_deal_schools_will_feel_the_pain_--_but_it_could_have_been_worse

Tom Petty Soundtrack. Rumor has it that Tom Petty isn't too happy about Michelle Bachmann using his song "American Girl" as background music at her rallies. But it's not just Congresswoman Bachmann for whom a Tom Petty song might be appropriate these days. Petty has always been one of my favorite artists (I saw him 4 or 5 times live) and his stable of songs contains a number of titles that are quite descriptive of the Minnesota government shutdown.

Let's go over the list in Kasey Kasem fashion with these short-distance dedications of Tom Petty songs going out to the following folks:

"Breakdown" to describe the shutdown itself.

"I Won't Back Down" for legislative leadership and the Governor.

"Free Fallin'" to describe more than a few government programs.

"The Waiting" describing what most of us lobbyists have been doing.

"Even the Losers" for those interests that didn't fare so well.

"Into the Great Wide Open" for Minnesota as it heads into a new set of challenges.

"Don't Do Me Like That," for just about everyone at some time during the past session.

Tom, you just have to quit writing such snappy songs with such malleable titles.

2011-07-16T06:29:00.000-07:00

Saturday Morning Confusion. I couldn't resist using the title of that old Bobby Goldsboro song to describe what is likely the situation over at the Capitol (or should I say Dome of Silence). Anyway, it appears from newspaper reports that not everything is quite done--especially on the state departments appropriations bill--and that may prevent the Governor from calling a special session on Monday. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

One thing that has been predictable and I'm sure the rhetoric will fly when the special session is the hubbub over the policy measures that are near and dear to many Republicans that will be absent from the final bills. Some of these policy measures will likely survive the negotiations, but my guess is many will be absent. Whether one agrees or disagrees with these measures, the disappointment is real and the complaints regarding their omission is understandable.

StarTribune: http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/125672013.html

MinnPost (Budget Deal): http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2011/07/15/30073/some_questions_--_and_answers_--_about_minnesota_budget_deal_and_what_happens_next

Stadium Deal Out. I know Zygi Wilf, in his quest for a stadium, has to use every opportunity to press his case, but I thought he showed about the same level of judgment as Brett Favre throwing into triple-coverage when he stated that "the time is now" for a stadium deal. As my mother drilled into my head countless times as a youngster (it took more than a few admonishments), "there's a time and a place for everything."

The time for a Vikings' stadium is not now. The Governor and Legislature have just come out of an historic deadlock and, believe me, the camel has as much straw as it can possibly carry.

In fairness to Wilf and company, it's hard to tell when the time will be right. After swimming in these hyper-partisan waters and taking a passel of very tough votes to pass the budget, my guess is most members of the newly-minted majority will want to steer clear of St. Paul until the 2012 session convenes. That clearly doesn't help the Vikings case and while fairness isn't a term often used to describe the plight of professional sports franchises, the team really is having a hard time getting an opportunity to make a clear, unemotional case as to why a stadium deal is in the state's best interests.

A complicating matter is that if a number of policy measures are forfeited by the Legislature in the current budget deal, what would prevent them from passing them all again during a special session, even if that session were convened with the sole intent of endorsing a stadium deal? Once the session is called, the Governor loses control of it. That's the risk of special sessions and one the Governor likely won't take unless he has full assurance from legislative leadership that the only matter before the legislative bodies will be the stadium.

Just something to watch as we move ahead after this special session ends.

2011-07-15T17:54:00.000-07:00

I'm Following Along at Home (Like Everybody Else). From what I can gather, there have been a few speed bumps as the various legislative chairs and representatives of the Governor's office attempt to put together their bills by 10 PM this evening. While I don't believe 10 PM is a hard and fast deadline, it is the Governor's hope that work will be completed on all the appropriations bill by that time and that the bills could go to the Revisor's of Statutes office tomorrow for formal drafting. This would allow him to call a special session on Monday at which these bills could be passed.

At this juncture, it appears there will be multiple bills: the tax bill and appropriations bills from each of the remaining appropriations divisions (all but Agriculture). The StarTribune reported that the negotiations on the state departments bill broke down this afternoon, as Senate Chair Mike Parry (R-Waseca) became frustrated over the administration's reluctance to agree to include a number of policy provisions, viewed by the Senator as reforms, in the final bill.

As I pointed out yesterday, there are a number of potential stumbling blocks that will likely slow down, but not derail, the final negotiations. One has to remember that the bulk of the negotiations between the Governor and legislative leadership has dealt with the overall budget framework in terms of the aggregate spending level for state government and the level of revenue and the manner by which it will be raised. There was little, if any, discussion of particular reform provisions passed by the Legislature since the delivery of the veto messages outlining the Governor's objections to these provisions.

So, on we go.

StarTribune link on state government bill: http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/125662488.html

Everyone is "Disappointed." That seems to be the gist of most of the comments coming from both the Governor and legislative leadership. I've always thought a good compromise was when everyone wasn't happy that they didn't get everything they wanted, but were happy with what they got. It seems to be the converse here, as everyone is relieved the shutdown is over and agreement has been reached, but disappointed content of the compromise. Should make for an interesting 2012 if nothing else.

2011-07-15T09:33:00.000-07:00

The Good News is We're Off the National Radar. At least for now. My guess is we'll probably be back on it in two years as the budget agreement leaves a number of unanswered questions regarding how it will correct structural problems in the state budget and affect state government/local government relations in the immediate and long-term future. It is extremely difficult to gauge what the effects of the agreement will be.

How hard? Whenever I come to a situation like this one, I usually pull out one of my favorite quotes from former baseball great Ted Kluszewski. It goes like this:

How hard is hitting (a baseball)? You ever walk into a pitch-black room full of furniture that you've never been in before and try to walk though it without bumping into anything? Well, it's harder than that.

That's about the same way I feel when I contemplate the policy and political ramifications of this deal. About the only thing that can be said with some measure of certainty is that the final budget package will get few, if any, votes from DFL legislators. Reaction from the House DFL caucus to the budget agreement would best be described as cool (if it were that warm). Clearly, the increase in the payment shift is troubling, along with the unprecedented "bonding for cash" set-up.

A MinnPost story on the House DFL's reaction can be found here: http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2011/07/15/30054/dfl_legislators_may_be_the_most_dismayed_with_budget_deal/?utm_source=MinnPost+e-mail+newsletters&utm_campaign=ef68936d18-Newsletter_7_15_117_15_2011&utm_medium=email

I have yet to see much in terms of reaction from either of the majority caucuses.

School Shift Blues. When the question of increasing the shift is set before the education lobby, we try to be Solomonic. It's almost like, "Well, you can slow down the delivery of food to the baby, but please starve the baby." Pushing the metaphor along a bit, we go out and scramble to meet our caloric needs (in a fiscal, not physical sense) which inflicts increased borrowing costs on us, but in the end, we do get our money. But it ain't fun. And it's getting less predictable. And it ain't easy.

Beth Hawkins over at MinnPost, who has been doing a wonderful job covering education issues for the online paper, filed this story regarding the increase in the shift and how it may play into the Governor's education funding reform package that was assembled last spring.

Link: http://www.minnpost.com/learningcurve/2011/07/15/30057/latest_school_aid_shift_a_good_reason_to_revisit_plan_to_revamp_funding/?utm_source=MinnPost+e-mail+newsletters&utm_campaign=ef68936d18-Newsletter_7_15_117_15_2011&utm_medium=email

Whither Policy? Or should the title be "Policy Withers?" At this point, the education community has been on the outside looking in as it pertains to the negotiating process, as it should be if the folks beneath the Capitol dome want the shutdown to end quickly. A group of education management organizations, including SEE, have sent a letter to the Governor and legislative leadership urging them to include a number of measures in the final package. Foremost among these items is the mandate relief measures that were included in the omnibus education finance and policy bills. Hopefully, that will help keep some of these items alive.

2011-07-14T15:44:00.000-07:00

And Just Like That. The proposal sent by Governor Dayton to legislative leadership has been accepted and now all that has to be worked out are the details as I laid out in the last post. I will fill you in as items become available.

StarTribune Link: http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/125600108.html

2011-07-14T14:19:00.000-07:00

Prelude to a Deal? Governor Dayton today took a big step toward ending the half-month government shutdown by agreeing, in part (and let me stress, in part), to an offer forwarded by legislative leadership during the last few days of June. Under the framework of the deal, there would be no tax increase. Instead, the $1.4 billion in revenue needed to close the budget gap (along with $3.6 billion in cuts) would come from setting the education aids payment shift at 60%/40% (up from 70%/30% last year and 90%/10% currently proscribed by statute) and bonding for cash based on dollars currently in reserve due to the tobacco settlement. Each of these items would generate approximately $700 million. In order to help school districts with the increased costs of borrowing, $50 per pupil would be placed on the education basic formula in each of the next two years.

The Governor has also asked that a $500 million bonding bill be part of the deal and that a number of policy provisions sought by the Legislature be dropped.

Where confusion and potential stumbling blocks exist is in the yet unspecified policy provisions either contained in legislative spending bills or discussed as part of the negotiations that were held in June that the Governor has stated he wants dropped. At this point in time, it is unclear whether that means all policy provisions will be dropped and that current law will remain in place except where changes were made and accepted during the regular legislative session or that provisions that the Governor does not support will not be accepted from this point forward in the negotiations. The former is clear, but the latter leaves a massive gray area, as we don't know where exactly the Governor stands on a number of provisions in the education funding and education policy bills. He has provided some insight in his veto messages on those bills, but there may be a number of other provisions in those bills that he also finds troublesome but has yet to point out.

Hopefully, the mandate reform that we worked on during the 2011 session will survive. It would be extremely unfortunate if items like repeal of the January 15 negotiating deadline and the associated aid penalty, repeal of the 2% staff development set-aside and the 50%/25%/25% staff development distribution formula, and the maintenance-of-effort requirement for school safety revenue expenditures on school guidance counselors, school psychologists, and social workers were not allowed to become part of the final education policy package. A number of education groups worked very hard on all of these provisions this past session and even though schools will likely not see the massive cuts that will be experienced in the area of health and human services, no one is going to be swimming in money going into next year and the increases in the payment delay will drive up borrowing costs to ensure cash flow needs are met. Given these facts, mandate relief would be timely. In addition to mandate relief, increased flexibility by allowing transfers between budget areas for the coming biennium would also be welcome.

Progress in the area of teacher bargaining would also be of assistance to school districts as they seek to hold down long-term costs going forward.

Where the Legislature may have to gulp hard before accepting the Governor's offer is on the number of education reforms they have sought during the 2011 Legislative Session. What I call the "All Things Florida" reforms (3rd grade retention for below grade-level readers, opportunity scholarship or vouchers in common parlance, and the A-F grading scale for school buildings) and the comprehensive teacher evaluation language may be the items the Governor wants to see gone from the negotiations and those proposals are near and dear to a number of legislators. Would desire to retain those reforms prevent the Legislature from making a deal? Hard to say, but probably not. If they are dropped, look forward to a wild start to the 2012 Legislative Session when all of these things may once again find themselves on the Governor's desk.

Here are links on Governor Dayton's proposal:

MinnPost: http://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2011/07/14/30012/dayton_offers_to_end_shutdown_by_accepting_gop_plan_--_with_conditions

StarTribune: http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/125567238.html

Stay tuned. Things will probably be moving fast.

2011-07-13T18:57:00.000-07:00

A Malodorous Premonition. The Ghost of State Shutdowns Yet to Come visited me in a weak moment the other day as I thought, "What could be the worst thing that could possibly happen in terms of education funding?" Here's what I came up with.

Increasing the payment shift has been discussed and I would not be surprised if that happened, but the rest of this scenario is PURE CONJECTURE on my part. Not much has been said about the fate of the education policy provisions passed by the Legislature and vetoed by the Governor during the regular session, but what will be the Legislature's position on the items they worked upon if and when the framework?

Coming out of the legislative session, both the Legislature and the Governor were "around" the base amount for the coming biennium in terms of education spending. As stated above, the Legislature's approach also included a number of proposed reforms including A-F grading of schools, low-income scholarships for students in failing schools in cities of the first class (vouchers), the retention of 3rd graders who do not pass the state third-grade reading test, and annual teacher evaluation (part of which would be based on the achievement levels of students on standardized tests).

I thought, "What if there gets to be a tug-of-war over these reforms, with the Legislature being unwilling to maintain funding at the level contained in the bill passed during the session in the absence of these reforms?" In other words, the Governor, and the education community somewhat by extension, would have the choice of "revenue at base level with reforms deemed contentious and controversial" OR "revenue below base level and little or no reform."

I frankly have no idea and no inside information of what is likely to happen in regard to policy provisions as negotiations continue (when they do continue) and what I've done here is merely point out the worst-case situation. Stay tuned, we'll hopefully know soon.

Interesting Development at National Education Association's Annual Convention. In a bit of a surprise, the National Education Association (NEA) voted this past weekend to allow for student achievement levels to be used in the evaluation of teachers. As many of you are aware, this has been a huge barrier to progress in the area of teacher evaluation between the teaching profession and education reformers. While continuing to shy away from the use of standardized test scores in developing teacher evaluations, the NEA's move clearly signals movement by teachers on this issue.

New York Times link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/us/05teachers.html?pagewanted=all

The New Republic link: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/91632/teachers-education-nea-obama-convention

2011-07-08T13:45:00.000-07:00

All Quiet on the Shutdown Front. Nothing new being generated on the shutdown front thus far today. It's probably more instructive to turn our eyes to Washington, D.C., and note that the latest jobs report appears to have emboldened the "no new taxes" group as they are pointing to continued sluggish growth on the jobs front to decry efforts being made by President Obama to construct a comprehensive budget proposal that would raise the debt ceiling, cut government expenditures, and raise some taxes. The news on jobs will likely stunt that effort, which in turn, will stunt any proposal to raise taxes in Minnesota as part of our budget solution.

Here's a story on the latest in the national discussion from The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/08/obama-jobs-report-unemployment-debt-ceiling_n_893251.html

A lot of folks go out of their way to trash Arriana Huffington and her journalistic endeavor (and yeah, it leans a bit to the left), but the site is timely and well-written.

Ad Wars. MinnPost ran an interesting article today about the ads that are popping up on television, radio, and billboards that aim to apportion blame for the current shutdown. It's difficult to tell whether the ads will make much of a difference in bringing the shutdown to conclusion, but my guess is there will be some hard feelings simmering all the way into next year's election as a result of them.

MinnPost Article: http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2011/07/08/29843/shutdown_battle_moves_to_billboards_and_radio_ads_to_pressure_both_sides_but_are_they_counterproductive

An Interesting Enterprise. Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan school board member Kevin Sampers stopped by my office this week to demonstrate his new web-based business Naiku. Naiku is a technology-based assessment program that helps students, teachers, and administrators find ways to promote both higher levels of achievement and more effective means of staff development. It's a very interesting approach to a number of challenges facing school districts and from the looks of it could serve as a very effective tool to bring together student achievement and teacher evaluation in a way that is far less cumbersome than a number of the proposals currently being discussed.

Here's a link to the Naiku website: http://www.naiku.net/

Clarification on a Story from Yesterday. It didn't strike me until this morning, but it looks like the "third way" panel headed that released its recommendations yesterday is advocating for a 90%/10% payment schedule for school aids. I don't know that for sure, but the recommendations called for $3.6 billion in cuts and $1.4 billion in new revenue and didn't specify whether the 70%/30% shift level proposed by the Governor in his budget and approved by the Legislature in its K-12 funding bill should be adopted. What makes me think the group wants to remain at 90%/10% is that it specifically decried further use of accounting gimmicks and shifts.

2011-07-07T19:19:00.000-07:00

Special Education Ruling Handed Down. Judge Kathleen Gearin ruled today that special education funds will flow in addition to general education revenue. Last Friday, the Minnesota School Boards Association and the intermediate school districts appeared before Special Master the Honorable Kathleen Blatz, petitioning her to allow special education revenue to continue to be paid out to school districts. During the 2005 shutdown, these funds did not flow, although it made no difference to school districts due to the abbreviated nature of that shutdown.

I am not an attorney, but I was not surprised by this ruling as it appears to be in line with the framework outlined by Judge Gearin when she described how she would define a service as "essential." It was difficult to discern from news reports whether both school districts and intermediate districts would receive their special education revenue, but Judge Gearin's ruling is clear that all special education revenue--both state and federal--will flow to both district and intermediate district providers.

Link to Gearin ruling (Point #1 on Page 2): http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/2/Public/Civil/Order_Regarding_Petitions_of_Minnesota_Department_of_Human_Services_licensing,ARC_MN,MN_School_BOard_and_INter.pdf

"Third Way" Commission Releases its Report. The group of former elected officials, business community members, and state finance experts that convened to assemble a package of budget cuts and revenue enhancements in an effort to break that deadlock at the State Capitol announced its recommendations today. Among the recommendations are:

A temporary income tax surcharge on all Minnesota tax filers.
An increase in tobacco and alcohol taxes.
$3.6 billion in unspecified budget cuts.
No increase in education payments or other accounting measures.

As expected, reception for the plan was cool and not just from the "no new tax" types. Governor Dayton objected to the income tax surcharge being levied against all Minnesotans, as his proposal calls for a tax increase on only the wealthiest Minnesota residents.

Here are a bevy of stories on the plan and its reception.

StarTribune: http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/125168168.html

MinnPost: http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2011/07/07/29826/all-star_budget_groups_plan_suggests_a_4_surtax_on_all_and_tax_increases_on_alcohol_and_cigarettes

MPR: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2011/07/mondalecarlson.shtml

They're Fighting in Washington Too? Say it ain't so! Besides the debt ceiling debate, Congressman John Kline, Chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, has been sparring with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan regarding the administration's authority to waive state requirements to No Child Left Behind. The debate began on late last month, when Kline sent a letter to Duncan asking him to explain the department's proposal to grant conditional waivers to a number of states and school districts. While acknowledging the need for greater flexibility for school districts, Kline questioned both the legality of the waivers and the wisdom of providing relief through waivers issued by the department, as providing flexibility in this way would cloud transparency and may cause confusion between school districts.

In his response, Secretary Duncan contended that he has the legal authority to grant waives and that he plans to proceed.

This is another example of how the nature of the debate in this country is not just about differing visions of tax and budget policy, but also regarding the powers of Executive and Legislative branches in both states and at the federal level. It should be interesting to see how this particular issue plays out, as the budget discussions at the federal level have impeded a number of committees' ability to tackle policy issues. All indications have been that Congressman Kline has every desire to be a very active chair of his committee and incorporate a number of changes into the re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Here are two sources on the exchange:

House Education and Workforce Committee: http://edworkforce.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=248594

Huffington Post Article on Duncan Response: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/no-child-left-behind-proposal-questioned_n_890795.html

2011-07-06T18:57:00.000-07:00

No Progress. From reading the news reports, it appears (let me stress the word appears) that the shutdown is nowhere near being settled and that anti-progress was made today. At this juncture, it appears (again let me stress the word appears) that the Governor is trying to find any proposal that will stick, but he can't find a taker from the legislative side of the equation. The main problem now appears (again let me stress the word appears) is that the Governor has begun talking about tax increases again (sales tax on clothing/temporary income tax surcharge for high income earners/cigarette tax increase) and in the eyes of legislative leadership, that has moved the process backwards.

I have included a link from the Minneapolis StarTribune the letter from the Governor to legislative leadership that spells out the details of his latest proposal. Note that the increase in the education aids shift from 70%/30% to 60%/40%--which saves the state $490 million on a one-time basis--is contained in both of the scenarios presented to legislative leadership.

Counter-proposals by legislative leadership to the Governor weren't published, but I can imagine proposals will be forthcoming, perhaps as early as tomorrow.

Link to proposals (scroll down below Zellers comments): http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/125103129.html

Also on the negotiating front, MPR reported this afternoon that Commissioner Cassellius and the Senate and House Education chairs--Senator Gen Olson and Representatives Sondra Erickson and Pat Garofalo--will be trying to find common ground on the various education policy items contained in HF 934 and HF 1381.

Some Special Education Notes. The Minnesota School Boards Association and the intermediate school districts petitioned the special master to classify special education services as essential last Friday and the Governor's office has now agreed with this stance and has also asked the special master to make certain special education revenue continues to flow to school districts during the shutdown.

The question that remains for me is what the level of the special education appropriation for the coming biennium. As the regular session ended, the Governor's last offer was to put an additional $128 million into the education appropriation to increase the basic formula by $50 per pupil unit per year and fully fund special education with the 4.6% growth factor for basic special education aid and 2.0% for the special education excess cost aid. As the offers were being shipped back and forth between the negotiating parties just prior to the shutdown, the status of special education was unclear and remains so as the parties continue to try and find common ground. Perhaps we won't know the answer on this issue until a final compromise is reached.

Panel of "Wise Men" to Convene. Two Minnesota statesmen have commissioned a panel in an attempt to build a compromise proposal that can hopefully end the government shutdown. Former Governor Arne Carlson and former Vice-President Walter Mondale will be heading up the panel, which will be chaired by former State Senator Steve Dille and former State Representative and Finance Commissioner Wayne Simoneau. Wells Fargo CEO James Campbell and Affinity Capital Management Kris Johnson will be representing the private sector on the panel.

Former state Finance Commissioners Jay Kiedrowski, John Gunyou, and Pam Wheelock have also volunteered to offer their input to the panel, as has former United States Senator Dave Durenberger.

StarTribune link on Panel: http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/125016294.html

2011-07-02T06:52:00.000-07:00

Negotiation Documents Posted. The Republican legislative leadership has released the last few offers from the failed budget negotiations and they are interesting. I say this with tongue firmly in cheek, but it looks like Minnesota school districts suddenly became the equivalent of the state's high income earners, because that's where both sides were looking for the revenue necessary to close the $5 billion budget gap.

From a cursory glance, the Republicans started the ball rolling with an offer to increase the shift from 70% current year/30% subsequent year to 60%/40%, with a later offer from the Governor to the Legislature increasing it yet again to 50%/50%. All offers included a $50 per pupil increase for both years of the biennium to cover borrowing costs that would result from cash flow problems associated with the shift. I could be reading the documents wrong, but I think I am following them correctly.

How central the increase in the shift was to the bargaining framework remains to be seen. The Republicans' refusal to accept any tax increase and the DFLs' refusal to issue bonds from the tobacco revenue (I'll have to go back to one of my old finance texts to decipher how that would be done) appear to be the major sticking points. Both sides now appear to realize the need for increased revenue, but their methods of raising said revenue diverge dramatically.

The suggestion that the shift be increased once again brings back the old "would you rather have your cash flow affected or your base reduced" question to the fore. When the move was made from 90%/10% to 70%/30%, the education community supported the move. We had been at or near the 70%/30% level a couple of times in the past and while scrambling to keep cash flow healthy is never a walk in the park, 70%/30% was tolerable. Increasing the shift beyond 70%/30% would be uncharted territory and the level of comfort would diminish drastically. The original question of whether or not this is preferable to a base cut remains, however, and the education community will have to parlay and determine how to react to the suggestion.

Mark this one down folks (along with all the rest of my inaccurate predictions). I thought that the 70%/30% funding schedule would be accepted by both sides and no further cash flow adjustments would be even suggested. Just imagine John McLaughlin, host of The McLaughlin Group, looking at my suggestion and bellowing his trademark "WRONG!" in reaction to my earlier prediction.

Here is the StarTribune links to the budget offers: http://www.scribd.com/doc/59101922/GOP-Negotiation-Handout

Special Master Hearing. Below is a link to the MinnPost story on the initial hearing held by Special Master Kathleen Blatz.

Link: http://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2011/07/01/29699/judge_blatz_hears_pleas_for_continued_state_funding_despite_shutdown

Morning Take. If you haven't already done it, I strongly suggest that you subscribe to Blois Olson's Morning Take. Olson is a public relations specialist with the Tunheim Partners and does a tremendous job of providing an encapsulation of what's happened and what's happening in relation to state government issues all delivered to your e-mail inbox Monday through Friday.

Here's a link to subscribe to Morning Take.

Link: http://morningtake.posterous.com/pages/subscribe-to-morning-take

2011-07-01T15:21:00.000-07:00

Day One. Not much to report on the shutdown front today. The hearing conducted by Special Master Kathleen Blatz, former Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court and State Representative from Bloomington, took place today with a number of state service providers filing petitions seeking to have the services they provide classified as essential.

The Minnesota School Boards Association has filed a petition calling for special education services to be deemed essential. As I reported yesterday, I believe compelling arguments can be made to have those services fall into the essential category and I would not be surprised at all if the Special Master were to rule in that direction.

Interesting that a spat broke out between the Attorney General's office and attorneys representing Governor Dayton at the hearing. If you recall, Attorney General Swanson petitioned Judge Gearin for pretty much a "non-shutdown" prior to Judge Gearin's ruling that was very close to that advocated by the Governor. Makes for big fun, if you like this sort of thing. Me, I'll just pass.

Bits and Pieces from the Last Night of Negotiations. One item that piqued my interest as I read the re-hash of the last few hours of negotiations between the Governor and the Legislature was a call for an increase in the shift by Republican legislators as they sought to close the budget gap. Governor Dayton wouldn't buy into that suggestion, which is one reason why we are where we are right now. It just goes to show you, just when you think the last can has been kicked down the road, someone comes out of the ditch with a new one.

Who is Going to Win? Besides no one. I think this opinion piece by the StarTribune sets out a fairly plausible estimate of how this might turn out in the short term. There are both political and policy angles to what will happen from this point, but the fact that DFL constituencies likely face more potential damage from the shutdown than do Republican constituencies shouldn't be lost on anyone. Just hard to believe that accord can be reached without some type of general tax increase.

StarTribune editorial: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/124883939.html

2011-06-30T13:46:00.000-07:00

Where We're at Right Now. We're eight hours away from state government turning into a squash (I'd say pumpkin, but Judge Gearin's ruling made sure we didn't get all the way to pumpkin status) and there's still not a budget agreement. While the sides have been meeting and a quorum of legislators is present and ready to convene if a the Governor and legislative leadership reach accord on the budget.

The scenario remains the same as has been reported with regularity in the press. The Republican Legislature refuses to go beyond $34 billion in biennial spending, while Governor Dayton wants to spend $35.8 billion. Briefly, the base budget for the coming biennium--the budget that would be in effect if the Legislature and Governor were not to reduce any expenditures--is approximately $39 billion. The Legislature has proposed to continue the state aid payment shift for education at $1.4 billion in the first year of the biennium and then bridge the remaining gap with spending cuts of $3.6 billion. The Governor has agreed on the shift, but wants to split the remaining $3.6 billion of budget gap evenly with $1.8 billion in cuts and $1.8 billion in tax increases, particularly an income tax increase on Minnesotans who make in excess of $150,000 ($250,000 for couples).

It's really difficult for me to say what happens next. The closed-door meetings may be generating progress, but it's hard to tell from the statements being given to the press by legislators and gubernatorial staff whether this progress (if there is any progress) is meaningful. The Governor has said that he will not call a special session unless there is an agreement and one thing I am relatively certain of is that that agreement will be signed in blood (figuratively, but I can't say that for certain). There is no way the Governor calls a session without an agreement because once the session begins, adjournment lies solely in the hands of the Legislature. In other words, they could use their own bully pulpit of sorts and take the discussion in any direction they so wished. Given the average Minnesotan's disappointment with how things have transpired thus far this year, that would be a high-risk maneuver on the part of the Legislature, but nothing would surprise me at this juncture.

Judge Gearin Ruling. I referenced Judge Kathleen Gearin's ruling from Wednesday in the first part of this entry. While there weren't any earth-shattering surprises in the ruling, there was good news for school districts, as Point 21 in her ruling holds that the Minnesota Constitution calls for the maintenance of a general and uniform system of public education, making that system essential. From this language, it has been determined that the three open-and-standing funding streams that are available to school districts throughout the state will continue to flow. These funding streams are:

General Education Revenue
Debt Service Equalization
Property Tax Aid and Credits

The revenue from these three funding streams comprise nearly 80% of the state revenue school districts receive. The other angle on this is that the payment schedule for state aid to school districts will revert to the 90% current year/10% subsequent year schedule that was in place prior to the changes made in the past couple of years to distribute the aid on a 70%/30% schedule. The change to the 70%/30% schedule was not codified as statute, meaning that the payment schedule reverted in the absence of legislative action to extend the 70%/30% framework. Ironically, it's the one place where the Legislature and the Governor agreed.

One of the odd effects here is that school districts' cash flow won't change much as a result of the return to the 90%/10% payment schedule. Seeing districts are slated to receive 90% of 80% of their revenue, the resulting percentage is 72% (it's actually a bit higher). 70% of 100% is 70%. The problem, of course, is that the subsequent year "catch-up" payments will be far less as the base is being reduced. In other words, it's not a good deal. An Excel spreadsheet showing the aid amount going out to each district in the first round of payments will be up on the Program Finance section of the Minnesota Department of Education webpage tomorrow.

The primary revenue categories that will not be funded as a result of the shut-down and the decision by Judge Gearin not to classify them as essential state services include special education, integration revenue, community education, adult basic education, and early childhood and family education. There will undoubtedly be a challenge on the special education revenue. In her ruling, Judge Gearin--in Point 22--wrote that the federal government has supremacy over the state in terms of intergovernmental compacts and I believe it can be argued that in order to make good on its part of the compact created by federal special education law, the state will have to expend special education revenue at a level that ensures maintenance-of-effort requirements outlined in federal law are being met. Now, I'm not an attorney (although I was accepted into law school at one juncture in my life), but I think this point would at least appear logical.

Judge Gearin ruling: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2011/06/documents/gearin_shutdown_order

What's Next? It's anybody's guess. I've always believed that if this didn't get taken care of relatively early in the wake of the session's adjournment, the curiosity (and belief on the part of both parties that they would win the toss in this game of political football) about what a shutdown would look like and how Minnesotans would react would simply be too great a temptation to forego. In a philosophical sense, one can't prove the negative and if both sides ardently believe they are going to "win" in the event of a shutdown (or have responsibility for the "loss" apportioned more to the other side), everyone needs to point to a reality of what a shutdown actually entails.

My advice is stay tuned to the major news outlets. If an iron-clad agreement is reached, the possibility exists that a "lights on" bill could be passed in a matter of hours and that the 22,000+ employees who won't be showing up for work tomorrow will be back on the job immediately upon passage. That would leave a few days to put the major agreement together and that could be passed in a one-day session. Even if the votes are lined up, there will still be an opportunity for foot-dragging and contentiousness, although my guess is Minnesotans wouldn't look kindly on dragged-out proceedings.

I'll be watching closely as well and will provide you with pertinent information as well.

Job Well Done by MDE. I want to take some time to recognize staff at the Minnesota Department of Education who have met with the education lobbying community three times over the past two weeks getting us ready for the possible shutdown. MDE Communications Director Charlene Briner has been leading these meetings and has done a marvelous job in this effort. Other MDE staff members who have contributed mightily are Tom Melcher, Rose Hermodson, Brian Shekleton, and Christina Gosack. Thanks are in order for their very hard work during these difficult times.

2011-06-17T14:38:00.000-07:00

It's Been a Month and I'm Feeling Guilty. I looked at this blog just the other day and saw that I hadn't posted in a month. My first thought was "I should post something!" My second thought was, "What would I post?"

The near-total breakdown at the end of the legislative session has been hashed and re-hashed to death and as I write, negotiations continue and legal arguments are being honed for the upcoming date with the court system to determine how much of Minnesota government can be shut down if a budget agreement is not reached by June 30.

At this point, it's my guess that there will be a shutdown. Both sides contend that they have come forward with their best (and final) offer and unless one side blinks and makes a major move toward a settlement, there doesn't appear to be any recourse but a shutdown. Perhaps I've been in this business too long, but the stakes seem to be so much more elevated in the past decade than in previous decades. For whatever reason, political combatants now cling to the poles of the debate rather than searching for the middle ground. Both sides believe they can get 100% of what they want, so why negotiate. As a result, there is this lurching along of the system, as the focus of the debate changes dramatically with the change in legislators. Given the change in legislative control coming into the 2011 session, I fully anticipated that the content of the debate would be much different than in the past few years. What I didn't anticipate--although I predicted a special session from the get-go--was the problem with budget negotiations being as pronounced as they are.

As for the shutdown itself, I don't think anyone is wishing for it, but I do sense that both sides have a perverse curiosity about what will happen if there is a shutdown. DFLers seem to think there will be a major upheaval in people's lives and the blame will all fall on the Republicans for not raising taxes to cover a portion of the budget problem. Republicans seem to believe that there will be less disruption to people's lives and that they can paint the Governor as being so intent on raising taxes that he'll take the whole state hostage if he has to in order to accomplish his goal.

I'm tempted to tell a somewhat off-color story about one of my cousins who came out from town to visit the farm and his curiosity with the electric fence and what would happen if he . . . uh . . .did a certain something in the proximity of said fence (I think you get the picture). Let's just say his curiosity was satisfied (although it was hard to tell through all the painful wailing). Needless to say, he stayed away from the fence for the rest of the day.

It will probably be the same thing here. Everyone is curious about what's going to happen. In this instance, the decision makers know there is going to be pain in the form of 20,000 or 30,000 state employees being out of work and a raft of state services being unavailable to Minnesotans, but it's hard to gauge what that pain actually means and maybe curiosity has gotten the better of the system. At any rate, my guess is once it's done, no one is going to want to do it again. . .at least for awhile.

MDE Shutdown Plans. The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) has put together an FAQ page to deal with questions you might have regarding how things will proceed if and when there is a shutdown. MDE convened a group of education lobbyists yesterday to outline their plans and to answer questions from us and to ask us questions regarding our memberships' concerns. I want to applaud MDE for bringing us together and giving us the opportunity to share our concerns. Another meeting is planned for when the shutdown looms ever larger.

MDE's webpage dedicated to shutdown-related questions can be found here: http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/About_MDE/Shutdown_Planning/index.html

I urge you all to take advantage of the opportunity to have your questions answered through this medium.

Governor Vetoes Everything. It's old news now, but the Governor vetoed both HF 934, the omnibus education funding bill, and HF 1381, the omnibus education policy bill. Below are the veto messages for each bill.

HF 934: http://mn.gov/governor/multimedia/pdf/20110524_Education.pdf

HF 1381: http://mn.gov/governor/multimedia/pdf/ch-114-hf1381-veto.pdf

I don't want to come across as picayune in pointing out one problem I have with the Governor's veto message as it pertains to the omnibus education funding bill, but the phrase "I will not sign an education funding bill that pits student-against-student or district-against-district" raises my hackles a bit (not all of my hackles and only a little bit).

When I worked for then-Senator Randy Peterson in the late 1980s when he was chair of the Education Funding Division (or whatever we called it back then), one of the sayings he repeated often was "we can only spend a dollar once." In other words, if it was spent on a single purpose or for a categorical formula that benefited one set of districts more than another, the dollar was gone. It couldn't be spent again on something else. If a dollar goes to a relatively small set of districts, other districts are going to be at a funding disadvantage. Whether or not the difference in distribution can be justified is another matter entirely, but what I guess I'm trying to say is that students and districts have been pitted against each other since the state became involved in the funding of education. It's only the competition for dollars that has become more keen.

I write this not to chide the Governor or to disagree with his veto of the omnibus education funding bill. Like almost all omnibus bills, HF 934 is a collection of items, some of which merited support and some of which yodeled "veto me" at the top of their imaginary lungs. Where I take minor issue is that over the past decade, we have seen more and more attention given to the qualities--demographic and otherwise--where school districts differ as opposed to where they are the same. As a result, we see more revenue distributed through various categorical programs at the expense of the general education formula. A vast majority of SEE districts are what I call "basic formula districts;" districts in which the basic formula assumes a much greater percentage of the total general revenue available to the district than in other districts with either high levels of categorical funding or a big referendum. This concentration on categorical funding has pitted districts-against-districts and the result has not been to SEE members' advantage. I agree with the Governor that districts should not be pitted against districts and the task force he appointed to update state education funding formulas that recently finished its work has some very good suggestions. Whether or not these suggestions take root at the Legislature remains to be seen (and the report is not perfect), but it is my hope that a system in which the basic formula plays a much larger role than it plays now will be the result of the discussion surrounding this effort.

2011-05-16T19:44:00.000-07:00

Some Movement. 170 hours from now, the 2011 Legislative Session will be over. As mandated by the Minnesota Constitution, a mere tick past 11:59:59 PM next Monday night and the Legislature will have to adjourn. At this juncture, it appears that it will be difficult to avoid a special session. While the Legislature has completed the conference committee proceedings on its budget bills, all but one of those bills has not been approved by the full Legislature. Further, these budget bills are not in the form that the Governor wishes to see them, either in form or in the manner he wants them presented to him. From the beginning, the Governor has demanded that the Legislature provide him with the omnibus tax and budget bills as a set so that revenue and expenditures could be balanced in a "macro" sense before individual budget items were addressed. The Legislature has chosen not to do that and does not appear to be interested in accommodating the Governor's request.

The Governor took a step toward reconciliation today, offering to cut his tax increase pretty much in half (to $1.8 billion) and scale back his budget requests by an equal amount. The Legislature still appears wedded to the axiom that taxes will not be increased this session, even in the face of a Minnesota poll that showed Minnesotans wanting a mixed approach to solving the state budget shortfall, including an income tax increase on Minnesotans with higher incomes.

Below is a link to the letter the Governor sent to legislative leadership outlining his new proposal. It is interesting that the Governor proposes to increase the general education basic formula by $50/PU in each of the next two years as part of his budget, which necessitates larger cuts in other programs.

Dayton Letter Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/55548438/Dayton-new-proposal

Minnesota Poll Link: http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/121836869.html

Policy Bill in Hibernation. That's not to say it's dead. It's just sleeping and it's going to have to wake up pretty quickly to make it out the door. The House passed the K-12 Education Policy Bill last week after a fairly long floor debate and it now sits in the Senate waiting for action. As I reported last week, there are several measures in the policy bill that would likely cause the Governor to veto the entire bill and with the bill not even to conference committee yet, it may be difficult to put together a bill that would earn enough legislative votes without also triggering a gubernatorial veto. As in the case of last year's K-12 Education Policy Bill, the world won't come to screeching halt as a result of the failure to pass the bill, but there are a number of very helpful technical provisions in the bill that would be nice to see made into law.

As always, I will keep you posted.

2011-05-11T07:39:00.000-07:00

They Came. We Watched. They Finished. Sorry I didn't post a wrap-up last night. The conference committee returned shortly after midnight and finished its business in a flash. The conference committee report is slated to hit the floor of the House on Thursday and the official bill summary will be available at that time. I will post it as soon as it is on-line.

One provision I failed to mention as part of the bill is the bargaining provision that limits the window for teacher negotiations and the ability of districts to go to binding arbitration if a settlement cannot be reached.

I'm currently at the Governor's formula reform task force. Lots of interesting talk this morning and some of it is troubling (at least to me). I have yet to write a report outlining my sentiments regarding this effort, but I will in the next day or two.

2011-05-10T20:06:00.000-07:00

Back in Action. We're back and running through a slate of motions that will put the bill in shape. Thankfully, the framework I reported on earlier was adopted in one motion as opposed to taking the provisions one-by-one. With that accomplished, the conference committee is recessing again and will return in about an hour to finish up its work.

2011-05-10T19:00:00.001-07:00

A Little Comic Relief. Just hanging around waiting for things to happen, someone showed me this little clip from The Onion. Nice to have a little satire every now and then.

Onion Article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/budget-mixup-provides-nations-schools-with-enough,20350/

2011-05-10T18:13:00.000-07:00

Bill Unveiled. It's not long on specifics in terms of language or appropriations, but we have a start on what the House and Senate version of the K-12 omnibus bill will look like. Here are the highlights.

Funding

Biennial Target of $14.1 billion (same as what went into conference).
Basic formula increase of $20/PU for 2011-2012 and $21/PU for 2012-2013 (down a bit from where both bodies came into conference).
Compensatory and Sparsity De-linked from general education basic formula.
Integration aid becomes innovation aid for 2011-2012 school year. Starting in S012-2103, districts participating in integration program keep their levy amount, but aid is rolled into Senate literacy incentive program.
Basic special education growth factor set at 2.0% for current biennium, 4.6% beyond that.
Excess special education growth factor set at 3.0% for current biennium; 2.0% beyond.
70%/30% shift levels made permanent.

Reform Measures (Looks like my earlier prediction was wrong)

Low-income scholarship program for students in low-performing schools in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth.
Task Force created to develop teacher evaluation framework created to be implemented in 2012-2013 school year.
A-through-F school rating system ala Florida.
Qualified economic offer with binding arbitration for bargaining purposes.

Mandate Relief

2% staff development set-aside repealed.
January 15 negotiating deadline and penalty repealed.
Safe schools set-aside for counselors, social workers, school psychologists, and school nurses repealed.
Districts can limit the number of 403(b) providers for employees.

I'll know more once language is made available, but this looks like the outline at this point in time. Hard to get a gauge on how it will affect individual districts as there are so many moving parts and with the dramatic reduction in integration revenue, a number of districts will be taking considerable hits.

I'll be back later with more.

2011-05-10T15:53:00.000-07:00

Wow! It's Been Awhile. Checked my last entry and didn't realize it had been this long since I've posted.

I'm writing from the K-12 Education Funding Conference Committee, which is currently in recess. Rumor has it that an agreement has been reached and that it will be unveiled shortly. I have no way of knowing what it included (or excluded) from the bill. I do know that the Governor has not been involved in the negotiations, making the bill's ultimate prospects rather iffy.

It's been a crazy couple of weeks. We are know inside the "two-week warning," and it's difficult to determine whether the Legislature's 2-minute offense can score on the Governor's prevent defense (or vice-versa). It's a bit of a mish-mash to say the least.

The Governor has remained at Ye Olde 30,000 foot level as he is insisting that the Legislature send him a balanced across-the-board budget before he will agree to negotiate with them on specifics. The problem the Legislature has right now that it appears presenting an "all cuts" budget is more difficult than originallly thought. Not that it couldn't be done, but in order to do successfully accomplish it, the K-12 budget target would have to be reduced and the Health and Human Services Budget would have to experience further reductions from those the Legislature has already made.

One prospective trend that we've seen over the past two weeks is the stripping of policy items out of the omnibus K-12 funding bill with them either being folded into the omnibus K-12 policy bill or sent to the respective legislative floors as individual bills. This may serve a couple of purposes. First, it will lighten the funding bill, at least at this stage of the game, of some of the reform provisions that are currently part of the bill. The Legislature taking this tack appears to be a fairly large concession, as removing reforms from the funding bill to stand alone (or in a group that the Governor likely has very little interest in passing) makes the "hill" to approval much steeper.

As it stands right now, HF 1381 is the omnibus education policy bill. It passed the House floor yesterday on a vote of 74-55. It is currently in the Senate Rules Committee, where it is being compared with the Senate version, which is markedly different. The Senate will undoubtedly pass its version and there will be an education policy conference committee after the House refuses to accept the Senate's approach. The House bill has several provisions inspired by the changes made in Florida over the past decade, including the grading of schools on an A through F grading scale and retention in third grade of students who are not reading at grade level.

A vast majority of the bills that have been sent to the floor as separate measures are extremely (and I mean extremely) non-controversial. The complicating factor for the bills going this route is that they are so non-controversial they might get lost in the shuffle or more controversial bills. It will be incumbent on the authors of these bills to shepherd them through the process. There will likely be no conference committees on any of these bills, so that means unless there are amendments attached to these bills (and that is indeed a possibility as they may be used as "vehicle" bills that serve to carry more substantive measures or collections of measures), they will go directly to the Governor after passage by both bodies.

We're all waiting for the conferees to return from their recess and unveil the bill and I will be back with more when that happens.

2011-04-25T19:11:00.000-07:00

We Are Now Starting the Bell Lap. I ran high school track. I was a reasonably good quarter-miler and was a decent 220 man. But once or twice a year, my high school track coach would get this sadistic idea that I would best serve the team's interest if I ran the mile (an idea that would be proven wrong on an annual basis). For those of you who are unfamiliar with the nuances of track, the final lap of any race is the "bell" (or "gun") lap because when the lead runner starts the last lap, the official will ring a bell (or shoot a gun--a starting gun--no conceal and carry permit needed) to inform the fans that it's time to pay attention because the next time the runners come around, the race will be finishing.

Why this story, you ask? We are now starting the bell lap of the legislative session. It's been an interesting race to this point, but four weeks from today the regular session is slated to end and--as a lot of track fans out there know--there's a lot of jockeying for position and strategy that takes place in that final lap.

At this point, I have a difficult time believing that the session will be wrapped up by the constitutionally-mandated adjournment date of Monday, May 23 at 11:59:59 PM. There's just too much to cover in too short a time. A story in Saturday's StarTribune reported that the Governor is having on-going breakfast meetings with legislative leadership and while there appears to be a greater understanding of what has yet to be surmounted, there is little indication that either side is ready to budge. Of course, willingness to budge (on both sides) will likely increase as the clock ticks louder, but we are going to need to close a $5 billion (slightly less than $4 billion when the education funding shift is taken into account and all sides appear to agree that will be done) in a month and that is going to require either a general tax increase (which the Legislature is resisting) or deeper cuts to the Human Services budget than the Governor appears willing to swallow.

As I have reported several times, I thought the Legislature would have sent a raft of budget proposals to the Governor and force him to veto them in order to firm up their position going into the final negotiations, but that strategy never materialized and the Legislature now appears to be keeping the remaining conference committees open and will negotiate with the Governor on the issues before these committees throughout the remainder of the session. Conference committees will begin meeting again these week. I will keep you posted.

Policy Up Next. When the Legislature returns tomorrow, policy committees in both the House and Senate will be picking up the baton and sprinting (yet another track analogy) until the policy committee deadline of May 6. Both the House and Senate have a considerable number of policy initiatives in their omnibus budget bills and it's unclear whether those provisions will remain in the realm of the omnibus education funding conference committee or if the policy provisions will be transferred into an omnibus education policy bill. At any rate, there are a number of education policy measures that remain to be heard, including the Minnesota Department of Education's policy bill, which is largely populated with non-controversial housekeeping measures. There will also be discussion of special education mandates, especially those Minnesota provisions that go beyond federal statute and rule. I will keep you posted on the progress of these meetings and whether the bills heard at the committee level will proceed on their own through the process or be folded into a larger omnibus education policy bill.

Important Visitor Coming to Minnesota Tomorrow. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush will be visiting Minnesota yesterday as a guest of the Minnesota Business Partnership to discuss some of the reforms enacted during his tenure as Florida's Governor. The Legislature has been somewhat obsessed with Florida since the publishing of a column in the StarTribune by Katherine Kersten outlining some of the measures enacted in Florida over the past fifteen years to boost student achievement. There is no question that what Florida has accomplished in terms of closing the achievement gap, but Florida's graduation rate is still among the lowest in the nation. I will be interested to hear Governor Bush's comments and to see whether they have any effect on the legislative proceedings as the session winds down.

Policy Up Next.

2011-04-14T20:28:00.000-07:00

Quick Conference Committee Update. The conference committee has met twice, opening its deliberations on Tuesday, April 12. The Senate named its conferees on Monday after a slight delay in the process. The Senate conferees are: Senate Education Chair Gen Olson (R-Minnetrista), Senate Education Vice-Chair Carla Nelson (R-Rochester), Senator Dave Thompson (R-Lakeville), Senator Benjamin Kruse (R-Brooklyn Park) and Senator Pam Wolf (R-Spring Lake Park).

Both conference committee meetings were relatively short, with neither going two hours. To this point, the proceedings have all been dedicated to going through the bills and describing where they are similar or different. Fiscal staff also went through the budget appropriations and levy sheets.

The session has taken a bit of a different turn. When the session began, I thought the new Republican-controlled Legislature would pass the budget bills early and get them on Governor Dayton's desk by April 15. I guess I was channeling my long-languishing "inner political hack" and those muscles have atrophied to a great extent. It just seemed that with the Republicans adamantly stating that their budget solution would contain no tax increases, that the April 15 tax filing deadline appeared to be great day to make a point by putting a stack of appropriations bills on the Governor's desk and saying something to the effect: "Minnesotans are filing their taxes today and they are taxed enough. We are putting these bills on the Governor's desk in a way that does not raise taxes to make sure we don't become more uncompetitive when it comes to taxation."

But then something happened and the legislative majorities changed their strategy. The pace has changed and the conference committee chairs in both houses have decided to keep the conference committee process open for input from the Governor. There hasn't been much input yet, but once the Legislature returns from its break for the spring religious holidays on April 26, I expect the process will accelerate a bit.

One stumbling block has been the Governor Dayton's insistence that the budget solution be done in a comprehensive manner and not with a piece-meal approach. He hasn't described what exactly a comprehensive approach looks like, but it's my guess that he wants to balance revenue and expenditures at once, set the various budget area targets, and work toward a final package of appropriations bills.

Below is a MinnPost story from earlier this week outlining Republican leadership's outline of how they believe the conference committee process will unfold: http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2011/04/08/27328/gop_hedging_on_specifics_as_conferen

ce_committees_begin_their_work

History Standards Review. I came across a brief article in The Economist about a month ago talking about the importance of teaching history to high school students. I can't link the article because it is copyrighted material that requires a subscription to view, but the article contained a reference to a report from the Fordham Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, in which 28 states received either a "D" or an "F" for their grade. Minnesota got to average with a "C" and the review of the standards contains some interesting, if not entirely unexpected, comments.

Here is the link to the report: http://www.edexcellence.net/publications-issues/publications/the-state-of-state-us.html

Links to individual state reviews are midway down the page.

2011-04-06T19:53:00.000-07:00

Eye of the Hurricane. It's kind of slow on the education front at the Legislature these days. The Senate passed the Education bill after a long floor session last Thursday and sent it back to the House, where the House refused to concur with the Senate amendments. As a result, the House asked for a conference committee (Senate accepted request) and has named its conferees. The Senate has yet to name its conferees and thus, the conference committee has yet to begin its work.

One reason for the delay is that both the House and Senate have been extremely busy on their respective floors dealing with the remaining omnibus budget bills. As fast as things have been transpiring, I thought that the conference committees would have jumped into action and finished their work by April 15. The Legislature is breaking for the spring religious holidays (Passover and Christian Holy Week) Tuesday, April 18, and I thought legislative leadership would make every effort--and they still might--to put all off their budget and tax bills on the Governor's desk by Tax Day (the press conference possibility just seems too obvious). It is still possible to achieve this, but things are going to have to move fast and, at least from my vantage point, there are enough differences in the versions of the House and Senate bills that likely preclude the bills being reconciled with dispatch.

The House conferees are: House Education Funding Chair Pat Garofalo (R-Farmington), House Education Policy Chair Sondra Erickson (R-Princeton), Representative Tim Kelly (R-Red Wing), Representative Connie Doepke (R-Wayzata), and Representative Randy Fabian (R-Roseau). Senate conferees are likely to be named by the end of the week and I'll let you know when they are named.

Side-by-Side Comparison of Senate and House Bills Available. Every year, legislative staff prepares a side-by-side comparison of each bill that goes into conference committee, showing where the bills differ. The side-by-side comparison for HF 934/SF 1030 is now available and posted at this link:

Link: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/sbs.php

2011-03-30T19:22:00.000-07:00

Living After Midnight. "Beware the Dinner Break" is a little known axiom around the Legislature, especially since rules have been implemented to prevent either body meeting after midnight, but it is one that always needs to be heeded. The House had been on the floor for about six hours yesterday, passing two omnibus funding bills--HF 1010 (the omnibus environment, energy, and natural resources funding bill) and HF 1101 (the omnibus higher education funding bill)--when they took a dinner break before coming back to debate, amend, and pass HF 934, the omnibus E-12 funding bill. Refreshed and nourished, the House reconvened at about 8:30 and commenced to aggressively discuss the bill and vote on a series of amendments until the bill was passed on a party line vote at about 2:30 this morning. To work that late, the House had to suspend the rule the prohibits meeting after the witching hour.

I think I've said it a couple of times this session, but the debate in the House on education issues has been exemplary all year long. Two distinctly different worldviews that often seem irreconcilable are often in play on a broad range of education issues and both sides have argued passionately and effectively in making their points. Of course, the Republicans have the votes and it's their perspective is pretty much carrying the day without much bipartisan compromise (which is understandable given the vast difference in worldviews that makes bipartisanship extremely difficult to foster). It was no different last night as both sides really put on their "A" game. The die was pretty much cast before the night started, but that doesn't mean the whole ordeal wasn't both interesting and entertaining.

The issue that was debated most ardently was the provision in HF 934 that provides low-income scholarships (read: vouchers) to students in persistently low-performing schools in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth. At the risk of sounding cheeky, I didn't realize that was a plethora of constitutional lawyers in the House of Representatives on both sides of the issue as the constitutionality of the program was both questioned and affirmed by the opponents and proponents respectively. I'm not going to venture a guess as to whether or not the provision is constitutional (I am not a constitutional lawyer nor do I play one on television), but I'm reasonably certain that it would go all the way to the State Supreme Court if it were to become law.

As hot as the debate over this provision became, the debate over the early childhood education reform measures (carried in HF 669 by Representative Jennifer Loon) was even a bit more spicy. A number of cultural conservative groups like the Minnesota Family Council have concerns about early childhood education, seeing it as promoting an erosion of parent rights and the promotion of the "nanny state" and they certainly flexed their muscles in influencing the vote on an amendment that stripped the quality-rating system out of the bill.

The biggest surprise of the night was an amendment offered by Representative Mark Buesgens (R-Jordan) that proposed to reduce the proposed increase in the basic formula by $19 per pupil and shave down several other appropriations. Under the Buesgens' amendment, the money saved through these cuts would have gone to flood relief had the amendment passed. However, the amendment was throttled by a vote of 116-12. Even though it was defeated, the fact the amendment was even introduced shows that there is some tension in the majority caucus over the size of the education target, which comes in a mere $12 million below the Governor.

Other prominent amendments, these offered by DFLers, dealt with the high-stakes testing and teacher evaluation portions of the bill.

The House will now wait for the Senate to pass its version of the bill tomorrow and it is conceivable that a conference committee could start early next week.

In other education-related news, Governor Dayton and Commissioner of Education Cassellius sent a letter to Representatives Pat Garofalo and Sondra Erickson, the chairs of the House Education Funding and House Education Policy Committees respectively, informing them that the administration views the House bill as deeply flawed and slated for a veto unless dramatic changes are made during the conference committee proceedings. No surprise here.

Stay tuned. Things are going to get and stay busy up until the holiday break the week of April 18.

MinnPost Article on House Education Bill: http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2011/03/30/27031/gop_passes_controversial_education_finance_bill_despite_lengthy_dfl_amendment_blitz

Governor's Education Funding Task Force Launches. Governor Dayton's education funding task force began its work today. The task force, co-chaired by Minneapolis Director of Business Affairs Peggy Ingison and Stillwater Superintendent Tom Nelson, has a very ambitious work plan, hoping to finish its work on design of a new funding framework by mid-May.

Today's meeting featured a very informative powerpoint presentation from Tom Melcher that accurately pointed out many of the challenges facing school districts in the state. Many of these problems deal directly with the equity issue both in terms of revenue and property tax effort disparities.

Deb Griffiths has posted the initial documents relating to the task force, including the roster of task force members, on the SEE website. There will be other documents coming forward soon, including today's powerpoint presentation that we will get on the website as soon as they become available.

2011-03-24T19:50:00.000-07:00

Testifying and Speechifying. I've seen my fair share of both the past few days as the omnibus education funding bills made their way through their respective committees. As I reported on Tuesday, the House proceedings on Monday night were a bit anticlimactic, as the DFLers chose not to offer any amendments (don't worry, they'll be offering more than a few next week when the bill hits the House floor). On Tuesday morning, however, the House Education Funding Committee slowed things down with each member of the committee giving their opinion on the bill. A lot of ground was covered more than once, but it was a very effective way for members to provide some very insightful testimony as to why they were supporting or not supporting the bill.

Not surprisingly--moving speeches or not--the bill passed on a straight party line vote of 12-8 and moved onto the Tax Committee, where it was heard last evening. The biggest tax issue in the House omnibus bill is the elimination of aid from the alternative facilities program, which affects a handful of the approximately 20 districts that are currently eligible for the alternative facilities program. Both Minneapolis and St. Paul see huge property tax increases due to the program becoming one entirely reliant on levy. It's an approximately $10 million annual property tax increase for Minneapolis and approximately a $4 million annual property tax increase for St. Paul. Big ouch and just another reason why urban legislators and their affected school districts think the House bill goes a little bit out of its way to inflict hardship on their districts.

The House bill moved onto the House Ways & Means Committee today, where the rhetoric heated up a bit, but the bill passed once again on a straight party-line vote.

Here is a link for the House district-by-district runs for the next two years:

Link: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/fiscal/tracking.htm

Scroll down to the 2011 Education Finance Appropriations. There you will find district-by-district data for each of the next two years, along with a district "look-up" spread sheet where you can get even deeper into the data and how your school district is affected.

Meanwhile in the Senate. The Senate bill was handled a bit differently than the House bill, as the Senate did not spend nearly as much time as the House did in re-shaping individual bills before the committee unveiled its version of the omnibus education funding bill. The House commiittees--policy and funding--really scoured through the legislation and put a lot of time into honing the various proposals before they were presented as part of the omnibus bill. Thus, when it came time to discuss the omnibus bill as a whole, the House committee members were very familiar with most aspects of the legislation before them.

What was different in the Senate is that the committee did not spend nearly as much time coming up with alternative language to a number of the bills and thus, took a lot more time discussing the bill and taking amendments Tuesday and Wednesday. As was the case, the final vote was pretty much along party lines, although at least one Democrat voted for SF 1030, the Senate omnibus education funding bill. The bill now moves to the Senate Tax Committee for a hearing tomorrow with a time certain of 11 AM.

Here are the links to the Senate tracking documents in respect to SF 1030. I cannot find any on-line district-by-district runs at this time.

Link: http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/fiscalpol/tracking/index.php?ls=#header

Scroll down until you come to the Education Committee and access those links.

What to Look For When Looking at the District-by-District Runs. There is a ton of "big furniture" moving around in both the House and Senate bills and because of that, there are wide swings in revenue causing some surprising distributional effects that often seem counter-intuitive.

The removal of the growth factors for special education funding, as many of you know, causes a tremendous amount of revenue re-distribution. Generally--and it's hard to say "generally" about anything concerning our current array of funding streams--the growth factors favor the metropolitan area and regional centers, as the special education formula is a cost-reimbursement formula and salaries are higher in the metropolitan area and the regional centers. There are some other outliers located throughout the state, which may equate to the fact that some of the high special education formula recipients among these outliers may be working under a "host district" model, with one district holding a majority of the contracts of the special education providers for a group of districts. Needless to say, whatever the reason, capping the special education appropriation moves a ton of money around.

The other issue in both the House and Senate is the significant changes that both bills propose for the integration program. The House bill pretty much leaves the revenue distribution as is save for the fact that Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth take hefty cuts to their revenue. The Senate totally eliminates the program beginning in the 2012-2013 school year and spreads the revenue statewide in a literacy promotion program. As in the case of the special education program, this generally moves revenue away from the metropolitan area with the caveat that there are a number of integration cooperatives located in greater Minnesota with the districts involved in these programs taking a similar hit to suburban districts that receive integration revenue.

The additional issue in the House is the proposed small school categorical funding stream that moves approximately $17 million into districts and charter schools with less than 1,000 pupil units, providing them with significant funding increases, in some instances over $500 per pupil.

So as you analyze the data, realize that if your special education costs are above the state average, the movement of revenue away from the special education formula and toward the basic formula amount probably does not work for you. Further, if you receive a lot of compensatory or integration revenue, the same effect is present and the move to put more funding into the general education formula likewise doesn't work as well for you as current law.

Most SEE districts do better when money is siphoned away from the general education categorical formulas (sparsity, compensatory, ELL, etc.) and put toward the basic formula, but that gets muddled a bit when the integration and special education programs are tossed into the equation.

Feel free to contact me with your questions and don't miss the regional meetings where we'll be discussing these bills in greater detail. I can be reached at 612-220-7459.

2011-03-22T08:25:00.001-07:00

Senate Omnibus Bill and Spreadsheets. Below are the links for the text of the Senate Omnibus Education Funding and Policy Bill and the spreadsheets for the bill.

Bill Language Link: http://www.senate.mn/departments/scr/billdraft/sc8210_Educ%20Omnibus.pdf

Appropriations Sheet: http://www.senate.mn/departments/fiscalpol/tracking/2011/Edu_aid_Sen.pdf

Levy Sheet: http://www.senate.mn/departments/fiscalpol/tracking/2011/Edu_proptax_Sen.pdf

2011-03-21T20:00:00.000-07:00

More on House Bill. The House spent eight hours in committee doing the final mark-up on their version of the 2011 education funding and reform bill. The panel took testimony from a broad range of members from the public. Besides lobbyists, a number of teachers, parents, and community leaders provided their input.

Four out of five amendments offered by members of the majority were adopted and all but one--an amendment offered by Representative Tim Kelly (R-Red Wing)--were technical in nature. Representative Kelly's amendment clarified that an arbitrator deciding a contract dispute between employees and the board in a school district must take a school district's overall finances into account and not rule in a manner that would damage the structural balance of a district. No amendments were offered by members of the DFL minority.

In my blog entry yesterday, I mentioned the newly-proposed small schools aid categorical formula. The formula gives districts below 1,000 pupil unitss aid equal to the ratio of the district's enrollment to 1,000 pupil units times 0.08 times $5,124. This aid is in addition to elementary and secondary sparsity revenue (which has now been de-linked from formula increases and keys off the same $5,124 amount).

Charter schools also receive this aid and, to my knowledge, every charter school in the state has an enrollment less than 1,000. This funnels a tremendous amount of new revenue to charter schools in addition to small schools throughout the state.

As many of you know, one of my primary complaints with creating new categorical programs is that a proliferation of smaller, focused funding streams erodes the value of the general education basic amount (Remember, you can only spend a dollar once and if it goes to a few districts through a categorical formula, it can't go to every district through an increase in the basic formula amount.).

Further, a number of charter schools do not perform well and they will be receiving significant new revenue even with that fact. That fact seems to be going counter to the direction of rewarding higher levels of achievement with additional revenue found elsewhere in the House bill (and also in the Senate bill).

The House will be finishing up its discussion of the omnibus education funding bill tomorrow. I fully expect it will pass on a straight party-line vote and then be re-referred to the Tax Committee for a hearing later this week. It will then proceed to the Ways & Means Committee and likely hit the House floor early next week.

Here is a link to the House omnibus education funding bill summary: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/bs/87/HF0934.html

Senate Bill Unveiled. The Senate Education Committee presented its version of the omnibus education funding bill. The bill is considerably shorter than the House bill and contains far fewer policy initiatives. After staff led the committee on a walk-through of the bill, the committee adjourned. It will mark up the bill tomorrow by taking testimony and considering amendments.

Below is a brief summary of the Senate bill.

Senate Omnibus Education Funding Bill Summary

Article I—General Education

1. Basic Formula Increased

a. $5,174 PPU for 2011-2012 school year

b. $5,224 PPU for 2012-2013 school year

2. Compensatory Revenue Frozen at 2010-2011 Level

3. Elementary and Secondary Sparsity De-Linked (SF 422)

4. Transportation Sparsity De-Linked (SF 422)

5. Maintenance of Effort for District Support Staff (Counselors, Nurses, Social Workers) Repealed (SF 56)

6. Salary Freeze for ALL School District Staff for this Biennium (SF 56)

Article II-Education Excellence

1. Teaching Candidates MUST Pass Examinations in Reading, Writing, and Mathematics Before Being Issued a License.

2. Future Teacher Salary Increases Based on Student Achievement

a. At least 50% of a teacher’s salary increase contained in future contracts must be based on a teacher’s performance and evaluation using student achievement levels as measured on statewide assessments.

b. If no statewide assessment results are available, salary increases must be based on student performance on districtwide assessments of state and local standards and teacher-developed assessments. If no districtwide assessments are available, increases must be based on student performance on teacher-developed and administrator-approved assessments of state and local standards.

3. Qualified Economic Offer for School District Bargaining Proposed

4. Teacher Evaluation and Tenure Reform (SF 636)

5. Full-Service School Zones Proposed (SF 372)

6. ServeMinnesota Innovation Act (SF 390)

7. Career and Technical Levy Increased (SF 451)

8. Integration Aid Extended Through 2011-2012 School Year and Replaced with Literacy Incentive Aid (SF 618/SF 422)

a. Integration Aid re-named Literacy Transition Revenue going to districts at same level as in 2010-2011 School Year.

b. Beginning with 2011-2012 School Year, a two-component categorical—Literacy Incentive Aid—is established. Total revenue generated will be equal to percent of students in each of a district’s buildings who score as proficient on the reading portion of the MCA-IIs averaged across three test administrations times $150 PLUS the percent of students in fourth grade in each of a district’s schools making medium or high growth averaged across three test administrations time $150.

Article III—Special Programs

1. Special Education Revenue Growth Factors Eliminated

Article IV—Facilities and Technology

1. Health and Safety Application Process Streamlined (SF 289)

2. Lease Levy for TIES Building Improvements (SF 315)

Article V—Nutrition and Accounting

1. Levy Recognition Based on Pre-Credit Amounts

2. Districts Can Transfer $51 PPU from Capital Fund to General Fund for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 School Years

Article VI—Libraries

1. Appropriations at Governor’s Recommendations

Article VII—Early Childhood Education

1. Appropriations at Governor’s Recommendations

Article VIII—Prevention

1. Appropriations at Governor’s Recommendations

Article IX—Self-Sufficiency and Lifelong Learning

1. ABE Formula Adjustment at Governor’s Recommendation

2. Appropriations at Governor’s Recommendations

Article X—State Agencies

1. Trial Placement at MSAD Allowed

2. $6 Million Cut to MDE Budget

2011-03-20T19:53:00.000-07:00

House Omnibus Bill Summary. You'll probably be pelted with information regarding the House and Senate omnibus education bills due to be heard in their respective committees this week, but I put together this quick summary as the hearings get underway.

One thing is obvious from the get-go. The House Education Finance and Education Policy Committees worked very hard on a number of bills that are fully contained in the House Omnibus Bill. While this might seem the way it should be, there have been many examples I have witnessed over the years where the process does not honor the work done at the committee level. Regardless on what one might think about a number of the provisions in the bill and whether or not one agrees with them, it is hard to argue to vehemently about the process. There are some surprises and some of them are significant, but that largely centers on the changes in Article I dealing with the de-linking of certain formula components from the general education revenue basic amount and the changes to the Integration Revenue Program, which were only discussed in concept at the committee level.

I have written on a number of these provisions in earlier blog entries, so you may want to look through the last week's worth of blog entries if you want further information.

The greatest controversy in the bill will likely center on the treatment of the Minneapolis and St. Paul school districts, as the bill calls for dramatic cuts in the integration revenue program (and make the program all levy for those districts), the de-linking of the compensatory program from the general education formula basic amount, and the elimination of aid in the alternative facilities program in which Minneapolis and St. Paul participate.

I'm available for questions all day every day this week. Don't hesitate to call me on my cell at 612-220-7459 if you need further insight.

So with no further adieu, here is the bill summary.

House Omnibus Education Bill Summary

Article I—General Education

1. Formula Allowance

a. $5,155 PPU for 2011-2012 (0.6% increase)

b. $5,210 PPU for 2012-2013 (1.1% increase)

c. $5,250 PPU for 2013-2014 and Beyond (0.8% increase)

2. Compensatory, Elementary and Secondary Sparsity, and Transportation Sparsity De-Linked

3. Small Schools Revenue Funding Category Created

4. Total Operating Capital Equalizing Factor Increased from $10,700 PPU to $12,790 PPU

5. Multiplier for Extended Time Revenue Increased from $4,601 PPU to $5,124 PPU

6. Maintenance of Effort for School Support Staff (Counselors, Social Workers, School Nurses) Repealed (HF 511)

7. Staff Development Set-Aside and Distribution Formula Repealed (Staff Development Set-Aside Re-established without Distribution Formula in Article X Language)(HF 511)

8. January 15 Negotiating Deadline and Penalty Repealed (HF 511)

9. Early Graduation Achievement Scholarship Program Created (HF 257)

Article II—Education Excellence

1. Grad Test Exemption Eliminated/New High Stakes Text Framework Created (HF 568/HF 655)

2. District and Charter School Grading System and School Recognition Program Created (HF 638)

3. Qualified Economic Offer Established as Bargaining Option (HF 269)

4. All Districts/Charter Schools Required to Adopt Q-Comp (HF 947)

5. 403(b) Vendors Decided by District (HF 511)

6. Annual Principal Evaluations Established (HF 879)

7. Enrollment Options for Students at Persistently Low-Performing Public Schools (HF 273)—Bill is Limited to Cities of the First Class

8. Integration Revenue Program Re-named Innovation Revenue Program

a. Minneapolis Reduced from $480 PPU to $168.50 PPU (All Levy)

b. St. Paul Reduced from $445 PPU to $133.50 PPU (All Levy)

c. All Other Districts Currently Receiving Integration Revenue Receive at Current Levles with a Cap of $129 PPU (70% Aid/30% Levy)

9. New Bargaining Framework That Ensures No Bargaining During Months School is in Session Created (HF 339)

Article III—Special Education

1. Special Education Revenue Growth Factors Repealed

2. Third-Party Re-imbursement Program Established (HF 535)

3. Districts Not Required to Provide Educational Services to Non-Special Education Students from Other States Unless Tuition Agreement in Place (HF 360)

Article IV—Facilities and Technology

1. Alternative Facilities Program Made All Levy

2. School Districts With Maximum Effort Loan Awarded Prior to January 1, 1997, May Pay Full Outstanding Principal on the Loan Prior to July 1, 2012, and the Liability of the District on the Loan is Satisified (HF 782)

Article V—Nutrition and Accounting

1. Levy Recognition Based on Pre-Credit Amounts

2. Commissioner Must Approve All Fund Transfer Requests Provided Transfer Does Not Increase Property Taxes (Debt Service Fund Exempted Due to Tax Increase Provision or from either Community Service or Food Service Funds)

Article VI—Libraries

1. No Language Changes, Proposed Appropriations at Current Law Levels

Article VII—Early Childhood

1. Minnesota Early Childcare Program Reorganized/Reformed (HF 669) Provisions include:

a. Parent Aware

b. Early Childhood Education Scholarships

c. Commissioner of Education Required to Report by January 15, 2013, on Recommendations to Streamline Minnesota’s Early Childhood Education Delivery System

Article VIII—Prevention

1. School District Population Requirement for Community Education Director Raised from 2,000 to 10,000 (HF 511)

Article IX—Self-Sufficiency and Lifelong Learning

1. Adult Basic Education Set at $44,550,000

Article X—State Agencies

1. Teacher Evaluation/Tenure Reform Program Established (HF 945)

2. Perpich Center for Arts Education Dissolved/Converted to Charter School (HF 1078)

Article XI—Forecast Adjustments

2011-03-19T15:29:00.000-07:00

House Education Bill Available On=line. The strike=everything amendment that comprises the initial version of the House omnibus E-12 funding/policy bill is available on-line for your perusal. The bill will first be discussed in the House Education Funding Committee starting on Monday morning at 9 AM in the Basement Hearing Room of the State Office Building.

While much of the bill looks familiar and I have discussed it in past blog entries, I am going to take a look at the bill and provide some broader insight after I have reviewed it in greater detail.

Link to Bill Language: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/docs/A11-0176.pdf

Aid Appropriations Sheet: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/docs/Omnibus11Appropriations.PDF

Levy Sheet Sheet: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/docs/Omnibus11Levies.PDF

Stay tuned.

2011-03-17T13:49:00.000-07:00

Now in the Senate. As I stated in the last post, the Senate Education Committee is considering Senator Nienow's SF 388, a bill that would allow students below 175% of the poverty level in a low-performing school the opportunity to attend a private school through a scholarship program. We are hearing from all the usual suspects on the predictable sides of the issues. Many reformers see this as a vital option that needs to be added to the array of choices currently available--charter schools, PSEO, area learning centers and alternative programs--for students in low-performing schools. On the other hand, most public school interests view this as an erosion of the public school community through the siphoning off of students.

Those testifying in favor of the bill today include Jim Bartholomew from the Minnesota Business Partnership, Dr. Karen Effrem from Education Liberty Watch, and Tom Pritchard, Executive Director of the Minnesota Family Council. Mr. Bartholomew's testimony centered on Minnesota's achievement gap and highlighted studies that students in both the public school from which the students transferred and the private school to which they transferred showed gains in states where a low-income scholarship exists. Dr. Effrem's and Mr. Pritchard's testimony zeroed in on parent empowerment, which they see as being enhanced with this bill.

Minneapolis Public Schools lobbyist Jim Grathwol testified against the bill and he accurately summed up concerns from the public school community. All of us (AMSD, MASA, Minneapolis Public Schools, the ACLU, and SEE) testified against the bill during the House proceedings on a number of grounds. SEE has had a long-standing position against the use of public dollars for private education (I can show anyone who is interested the organization's platforms from the early 1980s showing this opposition) and most public school interests question the constitutionality of this proposal. In his testimony, Senator Nienow indicated that he believes previous case law in Minnesota and elsewhere would hold this proposal to be constitutional. For my part, I think there are some differences between the tuition tax credit, the education tax credit, and the other means of state financial support to private education in Minnesota and a lawsuit would likely result if this proposal were to pass and be signed into law. It is interesting to note that Florida, as part of its massive overhaul of its public education system beginning under former Governor Jeb Bush, passed a provision similar to the one in SF 388/HF 273. It was subsequently ruled unconstitutional in 2004.

There are some differences in HF 273 and SF 388. When HF 273 was discussed in the House Education Committee, several amendments were added to the bill. Among them are an amendment that requires any private schools accepting eligible low-income students to develop an anti-bullying and harassment policy and another that requires these schools to administer either the statewide reading or mathematics test or a nationally-normed standardized achievement test to its students.

This is a good and necessary discussion; one we seem to have one or twice every decade. There is no question the achievement gap is real, significant, and needs to be addressed. I just wonder if this is the right avenue, both in terms of constitutionality and cost-effectiveness.

2011-03-17T11:09:00.000-07:00

A Couple More Things About HF 638. I neglected to mention a couple of aspects of HF 638, Representative Pam Myhra's (R-Burnsville) bill that would create an "A-to-F" grading system for schools throughout Minnesota. The primary aspect I forgot to mention is that bill provides for a $100 per pupil "award" for buildings that either get an "A" grade or improve by one grade (i.e. a "D" to a "C") in the previous school year. In a time of tight money, this would certainly be an incentive for buildings to improve (or maintain if the building is receiving an "A") student performance.

I also wanted to point out some pertinent comments made by Representative Kory Kath (DFL-Owatonna) when the bill was discussed in the House Education Policy Committee. The gist of Representative Kath's argument is that while a program like this may be applicable in the early grades, it may not readily relate to the high school experience. Representative Kath spoke directly about how the stress on test scores is limiting the breadth of the high school curriculum in many school districts throughout the state.

As many of you know, I have often decried the growing "opportunity gap" that exists inside the boundary of the shadow cast by the "achievement gap" that shows up through the state's testing framework. The "opportunity gap" is more difficult to measure, as it is spread throughout the state in a manner that makes it more difficult to gauge. Electives and other co-curricular and extra-curricular often disappear unevenly throughout the state, making most of the evidence of a growing "opportunity gap" anecdotal and difficult to accurately document. As the Legislature moves forward this year and beyond, I hope a measure of opportunity can be established to augment Minnesota's measures for achievement.

I believe HF 638 does promote a discussion that needs to take place and the debate as we go forward will certainly be interesting. My only hope is that the discussion will be multi-dimensional and focus on all of the things that schools do instead of solely focusing on achievement levels.

Back in the Saddle at the House Education Finance Committee. The House Education Finance Committee is meeting again this afternoon (and likely into the evening after a break for the House floor session) and will be covering five bills. The first being discussed this afternoon is HF 1078 (Garofalo), a bill that would convert the Perpich Center for Arts Education PCAE) from a state academy to a charter school. This would obviously be a disruption for the PCAE, but as Chairmen Garofalo pointed out, money is tight and priorities are going to have to be set.

A bill that will be covered later in the meeting is Representative Keith Downey"s (R-Edina) HF 558, the bill that originally proposed to remove the exemption for the mathematics portion of the GRAD test. Currently, students are exempted from passing the mathematics portion of the GRAD test and can still receive their high school diploma provided that they complete all relevant coursework, receive remediation in mathematics, and take the GRAD test at least two more times (unless they pass the test on the first or second re-take). This exemption was passed in 2009 and is slated to remain in effect through the 2013-2014 school year. As introduced, HF 558 would lop a year off the exemption and make passage of the GRAD test a requirement for graduation beginning in the 2012-2013 school year.

The bill was amended the other evening in the House Education Policy Committee to include language from HF 655 (Keiffer). Representative Keiffer's (R-Woodbury) legislation would end the exemption for the mathematics portion of the GRAD in the same way as the Downey bill, but would go further in creating a new framework for high-stakes testing. According to HF 655, this framework--developed by the Commissioner of Education--would provide an accurate assessment of college and career readiness. Under the plan envisioned in HF 655, students would be required to pass state-developed end-of-course tests in reading and writing in 10th grade. In addition, the Commissioner would be required to develop statewide end-of-course tests for biology and algebra that students would have to pass (or show satisfactory achievement through alternative means) in order to receive a diploma.

There are arguments against increased attention on high-stakes testing. Research conducted by Dr. Stuart Yeh at the University of Minnesota has shown that investments like Response-to-Intervention (also known as Rapid Assessment) are more effective than the implementation on high-stakes test. On the other hand, assessing college and career readiness is a tricky business (witness the constant complaint by the post-secondary system that Minnesota high school graduates are not prepared for college work) and perhaps some sort of high school "exit" assessment can be helpful.

As with so many other issues I've written about recently, expect to see the issues of the GRAD exemption and other high-stakes testing measures contained in either (or both) the House and Senate omnibus education funding bills.

I now have to run over to the Senate to cover the Senate Education Committee proceedings, which will address SF 388 (Neinow), the bill that would create a low-income scholarship program for students in low-performing schools. That bill's companion--HF 273 (Woodard)--has already been heard extensively in the House Education Policy and House Education Finance Committees. This is a bill I have every intention on explaining to the blog's readership in greater detail, so stay tuned.

2011-03-16T17:58:00.000-07:00

Still in the House Education Finance Committee. I'm still here as the Education Finance Committee. I decided to start an entirely new entry in the quest to honor the need for more white space. The committee has now moved on to Representative Pam Myhra's (R-Burnsville) HF 638, a bill that would create an A through F grading system for Minnesota school districts.

Modeled after the Florida school grading system, which was discussed by the panel of Florida education leaders when they were in town last month. This measure has been credited by some observers as playing a significant role in raising overall achievement in Florida and narrowing the achievement gap.

A district's grade would be determined through a formula where: (1) 50% of the grade would be based on the proficiency levels of all students (accounted for in their subgroups), (2) 25% of the grade would come from growth in for each subgroup, (3) 15% based on the number of students in the low-growth category who did not reach proficiency in reading, and (4) 10% based on the number of students in the low-growth category who did not reach proficiency in mathematics. The product of these calculations would be compared to statewide average measures in each of those areas.

As I reported in my response to Katherine Kersten's opinion piece in the Minneapolis StarTribune, although Minnesota's per pupil spending exceeds that of Florida's, the percentage increase in Florida over the last decade has been 20 percentage points (approximately 60% in Florida to 40% in Minnesota) higher. Add to that fact that Florida has been spending this money strategically and the achievement gains become easier to explain.

During the Florida panel's presentation to the Minnesota Senate and House Education Committees, former Florida Education Commissioner John Winn (currently Chief Program Officer for the National Math and Science Initiative) stated (and I paraphrase) that when the Florida Department of Education saw it as its responsibility to help those schools at the lower end of the grading spectrum raise their achievement level. To me, that angle has to be discussed thoroughly in conjunction with any school grading system.

Does our Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) have the complement necessary to help schools that are having difficulty with achievement? Every biennium for the past two decades, MDE has taken cuts to its complement and sometimes those cuts have been massive as in the 20% state complement cut in the early 1990s. As has been pointed out earlier this session by MDE staff, there are currently more positions in the department paid with federal dollars as opposed to state dollars. How would a set-up like this work in helping school districts with low levels of achievement? I have been buoyed by Commissioner Cassellius' early comments regarding a culture change at MDE to make it a more service-driven department. That would mesh with the drive for higher achievement levels by all students grading system or not. But if we are to implement a relatively unvarnished grading system--unvarnished meaning no qualifiers, only aggregate scores--we are going to have to give MDE the tools to make certain that school districts get the assistance they need.

This bill is a complement of sorts to the Governor's "exemplary" schools initiative.

Integration and Compensatory Revenue Categories Under Scrutiny. Two bills have been heard in the Senate in the last two weeks that would take a whack at integration and/or compensatory revenue. SF 422, Senator Dave Brown's (R-Becker) bill, would cut integration revenue in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth, bringing them down to $129 per pupil unit, the current second tier level for districts deemed racially-isolated. Districts bordering racially-isolated schools would continue to get $92 per pupil unit.

Senator Brown's bill would also de-link the compensatory, sparsity, and transportation sparsity components of the general education formula from increases in the general education formula basic amount. In other words, the multiplier effect that increases the formula "value" of these components automatically.

The bill also states that going forward, 90% of any increase in state support will go into the basic formula component. With so many SEE members being well below the state average in terms of per pupil categorical revenue amounts, this is an approach that is largely SEE-friendly. Whether or not this has any "legs" during the session remains to be seen and we will have an idea as to whether it will even receive serious attention very shortly.

The Senate Education Committee heard Senator David Hann's (R-Eden Prairie) SF 618 this afternoon. This bill repeals the compensatory formula in its entirety and replaces it with a grant program that aims to provide schools--public or private--with the opportunity to apply for grants aimed at improving achievement. The process for grant application is very vague and it's unclear how revenue would be re-distributed under this framework. I think an argument can be made that there should be greater scrutiny regarding how compensatory revenue is expended, but there's no question that those districts that receive high levels of compensatory revenue can justify their expenditures.

Again, it should be interesting as we move forward.

Signing Off. Representative Myhra's HF 638 was just recommended for possible inclusion in the House omnibus education funding bill, giving me the opportunity to wind up my posting for the evening.

I hope to see many of you in the school administration field at the Spring MASA conference tomorrow and Friday. I'm serving on a panel on Friday morning, so I can imagine many are on the edge of their seats anticipating my comments. Well. . . .maybe not.

2011-03-16T16:57:00.000-07:00

Live from the House Education Finance Committee. It's another night session with the House Education Finance Committee just coming to order. The first item on the agenda tonight is Representative Branden Petersen's (R-Andover) HF 945, a bill that everyone is going to hear a lot about in the coming months. HF 945 proposes a new statewide teacher evaluation and professional development program. This bill was largely developed from work performed by the Minnesota Chamber in its efforts to improve student learning through improved teacher effectiveness. Teacher effectiveness has been a hot topic both here and in Washington over the past few years, as more and more research shows a quality teacher has an undeniable link to the achievement of students in their classroom.

The bill creates a appraisal framework based 50% on student academic growth on state tests or local tests developed by teachers and administrators if statewide measuring tools are not available. The other 50% of the teacher assessment would come from locally developed criteria that would have to be agreed upon by the teachers and school board before they could be used. From these assessment tools, teachers would be placed in five categories (from highest to lowest): (1) Highly effective, (2) Effective, (3) Average, (4) Needs improvement, and (5) Ineffective.

Four different levels of status designation are developed from the five levels of teacher assessment. A teacher who attains highly effective status in seven of ten years in two consecutive five-year periods is given "exemplary" status. A teacher who attains highly effective status in three of five years is given a "distinguished" rating. If a teacher earns an average, effective, or highly effective ranking in four of five years, they are given an "advanced" designation." A "standard" designation is given to a probationary teacher who have received at least one average, effective, or highly effective rating during their three-year probationary period.

In addition to the scores earned by teachers through their assessments, teachers must also successfully meet their professional development requirements. Effective staff development is described in the bill as activities aligned with district and school site staff development plans that is focused on student learning goals and promotes scientifically-based research strategies, job-embedded or integrated professional development opportunities that can be incorporated into the teacher-contract day, and the practice of new teacher strategies (among other things). Ironically, the bill brings back the 2 percent staff development set-aside that is marked for repeal in a number of other education bills before the Legislature.

The assessment rankings would determine the order of teachers released from employment through unrequested leave of absence. Teachers in the "needs improvement" or "ineffective" categories would be the first teachers to be cut. Teachers in the "average," "effective," "highly effective," "distinguished," and "exemplary" would then be laid off in that respective order.

SF 636, carried by Senate Education Chair Gen Olson (R-Minnetrista), is the Senate companion to HF 945. The Senate Education Committee has already heard this legislation.

The proponents and opponents to this legislation are pretty much as expected for the expected reasons. There are a small number of teachers who support the legislation (one teacher--speaking on his own behalf--contending that the bill does not go far enough because it does not provide merit pay for exemplary teachers) along with the Minnesota Chamber and the Minnesota Business Partnership. Education Minnesota, which believes that assessment frameworks should be developed locally, opposes the bill. My major concern is that I don't know if our principals and other school personnel who would be expected to perform the increased number of assessments will have enough time to complete this additional work with the level of attention needed to ensure the assessments will be accurate.

This issue will not be going away this session. I fully expect it to be a part of the omnibus education funding bill in both the House and the Senate and it will make it to the Governor's desk in some form. It is unclear what changes the Governor will want to make to this legislation (I imagine there will be some), but there is a lot of momentum to this effort. Representative Petersen has done an admirable job piloting the legislation in the House, taking feedback from the broad range of interests following this legislation. Although discussion in the House Education Committees has been far spicier than the Senate Education Committee conversations, Senator Olson has also done well in her role guiding the bill in the Senate.

Stay tuned.

2011-03-15T19:42:00.000-07:00

Blogorrhea. It's been awhile since I posted and the main reason for that is that the House and Senate Education Committees have pretty much been going wall-to-wall over the past two weeks, hearing just about every education bill that has been introduced to this point. With the budget bill deadline just a little over a week away (Friday, March 25), a number of policy bills have been heard and will likely be included in the House and Senate omnibus education funding and policy bills.

When the committee deadlines were set, with the budget bills due out before the policy committee deadlines in an extremely rare move, I thought that the legislative strategy would be to deliver scaled-down budget bills to the Governor without including a heavy dose of policy provisions and force him to consider vetoing the entire set of legislative budget bills. As was made clear by legislative leadership when they presented their budget targets, the House and Senate intend to pass their budget plan without a tax increase and I thought (there I go thinking again) that would constitute an opportunity for the Legislature to differentiate its approach from the Governor's without cluttering the budget bills with a raft of policy initiatives. In a year when everyone is guessing, I guessed wrong (Hey! We're all allowed one per session.)

That's not to say that the policy initiatives aren't comprehensive. I'll be spending the next few blog entries going over some of the major policy issues before the education committees this session. They generally come from the conservative side of the education policy spectrum and deal with issues like mandate relief, accountability, employee relations, teacher quality, and expanded school choice opportunities.

Speaking of Targets. The House and Senate Majority caucuses announced their budget targets last week and, as stated earlier, their proposed budget recommendations do not include any state tax increases. This is the largest difference between the Legislature and the Governor as they seek to find accord on Minnesota's fiscal problem. This amounts to a difference of about $3 billion, the amount of the spending difference between the Legislature and the Governor and slightly more than the amount of the Governor's proposed tax increases.

For K-12 education, the target news is very good. Given a $5 billion revenue shortfall, there was widespread concern that considerable cuts to the K-12 budget would have to be enacted to balance the budget, especially because of the evaporation of the federal stimulus package revenue that back-filled cuts to education spending last biennium. That didn't turn out to be the case, as the House and Senate target for K-12 education came in just under $14.2 billion for the biennium, approximately $11 million less than the Governor's proposed spending. One point of agreement between both Houses of the Legislature and the Governor is a continuation of the education aid payment shift at a 70%/30% rate, putting a $1.4 billion dent--just short of 30%-- in the revenue shortfall.

That doesn't mean that there won't be major differences between how the Legislature reacts to the Governor's education budget and the resulting array of changes from current funding streams that the Legislature may enact. There has been some chatter, most of it below the radar, that the integration program will be radically changed with revenue re-distributed. It is highly doubtful that the Governor would ever endorse such a move, but that won't stop the Legislature from running it up the flagpole. There has also been talk of re-vamping the compensatory education program, which would divert money onto the basic formula (or some other formula) from districts with high levels (and sometimes high concentrations) of families with students who qualify for free-or-reduced price lunch.

All of this will be coming to a head over the next week. As I stated above, the budget bills have to be out of their funding divisions by Friday, March 25. That means the discussion will be shifting toward budget bills over the next few days. I'll be reporting on those proceedings regularly as well as providing updates on the policy debates that have been receiving attention over the past week.

Here is a link showing the House budget targets (the Senate K-12 target is identical at this point): http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/fiscal/files/targets11.pdf

2011-03-03T19:05:00.000-08:00

Sweet Thursday. Didn't know what to title today's entry, so I thought I'd name it after the John Steinbeck novel Sweet Thursday (the sequel to Cannery Row) and the late-1960's supergroup of the same name. Don't worry, it wasn't that sweet a Thursday, although both houses of the Legislature passed SF 40, the alternative teacher licensure bill and there was an awesome hearing in the House Education Reform Committee this morning.

We'll start with the House Education Reform Committee where Forest Lake agriculture teacher Mike Mieron provided a presentation of a new program developed by the Minnesota Association of Agricultural Educators with the assistance from grants from the Minnesota Agricultural Education Leadership Council and Christensen Farms, a Minnesota pork producer. Due to some revisions in the state graduation standards made during the past few years, several science standards can be delivered through agricultural education programs and the program that Mieron demonstrated for the committee showed how these standards can be incorporated into agricultural curricula. This project could be very helpful for both school districts as they attempt to provide a broad curriculum and have high standards across that curriculum and students who learn more effectively in applied settings. It was just a fantastic presentation and I want to commend both the Forest Lake district and Mike Mieron for their hard work.

The House Education Finance Committee featured two presentations. The first was from the Early Learning Coalition, which provided the final report from its work over the past year. The report outlines the goals of creating a seamless delivery system, consolidating and coordinating resources (and ensuring accountable use of those resources), establishing an administrative framework for early care and education, and developing and managing an effective data collection system.

The primary recommendation to achieve these goals is the creation of a cabinet-level Office of Early Learning. This recommendation was contained in a bill authored by Representative Sandra Peterson (DFL-New Hope) and will likely be in a bill again this session. Given the budget constraints facing the Legislature, it is doubtful that the proposal will get off the ground, but given the increasing interest in early childhood education and data showing its importance to later achievement levels of students, there is little doubt that this suggestion will stick around for the next few years in hopes that money will be available to make this happen.

The second item of business for the House Education Finance Committee was preliminary approval of HF 335, a bill authored by Representative Mary Kiffmeyer (R-Big Lake). Representative Kiffmeyer's bill would lessen the regulatory environment surrounding home schooling, both from the home schoolers and school district perspectives. The bill was laid over for consideration as part of the omnibus education funding bill.

Alternative Teacher Licensure Bill to Governor. Education Minnesota is disappointed that the alternative teacher licensure bill is not more prescriptive, but the conference committee on the bill passed easily with very little discussion in both the House and Senate today.

There was very little complaint about the content of the bill, although Senate Minority Leader Tom Bakk (DFL-Cook) did take issue with the process by which the final bill was assembled, contending that the negotiations were conducted in private. The final vote in the Senate was 46-19. The House vote was 80-51. The bill now heads to the Governor where, barring a complete reversal of course, it will be signed.

2011-03-02T20:09:00.001-08:00

Short Day. With the House Education Reform Committee not scheduled to meet and the House Education Finance Committee on a field trip, the Senate Education Committee was the only education-related committee meeting today at the Capitol. The committee covered four bills and acted on three of them.

The first bill was SF 95 (Bonoff), a bill that would make the Wayzata school district eligible for the alternative facilities program. The alternative facilities program is a levy/bonding program that has eligibility limits based on total square footage and age of building. This bill would revise the guidelines to allow Wayzata to be part of the program. The bill will receive further consideration as part of the omnibus education funding bill.

SF 289 (Limmer) was the next bill on the agenda. SF 289 streamlines the application process and removes a number of redundant or archaic process in the state Health and Safety Program. This bill received attention last year and would likely have become law had there been an education bill. The bill would have been given preliminary approval for consideration in the omnibus bill had there not been questions about the fiscal note that accompanied the bill. Fiscal notes are documents prepared by the Minnesota Department of Education in conjunction with Minnesota Management & Budget showing the state and local financial implications of a given piece of legislation. The fiscal note for SF 289 showed no fiscal impact at the state and local levels and several legislators had trouble believing that (for the record, I can't see how there would be a fiscal impact to this bill) and wanted to hear from the fiscal staff at MDE before taking further action on the bill.

Senator Hann's SF 325 calling for the creation of MNovate--a commission with the goal of promoting greater innovation and creativity in the education system--was next up on the docket. The bill was approved for possible inclusion in the omnibus education funding bill. It's hard to say why this bill is needed. There are a number of non-profits and universities that currently cover this same territory and while this commission would include a combination of legislators and other state and business leaders, it was hard for me to see why this panel would serve a significantly different purpose.

The final bill was SF 315 (Olson). SF 315 would allow the member districts of TIES to use a portion of their lease levy for the next ten years (in an amount defined by the bill) to contribute to improvements at the TIES building. This bill was also given preliminary approval and may be part of the omnibus education bill.

I probably should describe what approval or preliminary approval means in reference to bills that come before the various education committees. Some bills--the alternative teacher licensure bill as an example--proceed through the process on their own. When an education committee approves a bill like that, it goes on to the next committee of to the floor of the appropriate house of the legislature where it is considered separately. However, other bills are considered for possible inclusion in the omnibus education funding or policy bill. The bills heard in the Senate Education Committee today all fall into that category.

BUT, just because a bill receives preliminary approval DOES NOT mean it will be part of the omnibus bill. When the Senate and House put together their omnibus bills, some, perhaps most, of the bills that have received preliminary approval will find their way into those respective bills. What would disqualify a bill that has received preliminary approval from making the next step into an omnibus bill? There are a lot of answers to that question, but most of the time the reason for exclusion would have to do with lack of resources. The easiest way to follow the prospects of bills in the education committee is to forget the "How a Bill Becomes a Law" chart from your 9th grade civics book.

2011-03-01T19:34:00.000-08:00

Great Presentation on Career and Technical Education. One of the most pleasant surprises of the 2011 legislative session has been the great number of solid informational hearings that have been held in the various education committees on a wide range of issues. As I reported yesterday, the panel from Florida that shared their perspectives on some of the measures that state has undertaken to post some impressive educational gains. As interesting as that presentation was, Dr. Jim Stone's presentations this morning and afternoon on how career and technical education still fits in the curriculum and is the best choice for a number of students simply blew the Florida gang all the way. . .well, back to Florida.

Dr. Stone is the Director of the National Research Center for Career and Technical Education at the University of Louisville. The presentation was very comprehensive and showed how career and technical education programs at the secondary level can keep kids in school until graduation, prepare them effectively for their next life step, and (in perhaps one of the least-known learning strategies currently in the system) can help a number of students gain greater mastery over their academic coursework.

As many of you know, I spent a portion of my lobbying career working for the Minnesota Association of Career and Technical Educators and while on legislative staff in the late-1980s was part of the Secondary Vocational Restructuring Task Force (a joint effort of the Minnesota Department of Education and the University of Minnesota). Through these experiences, I've been exposed to a lot of the cutting-edge programs that are helping students that embrace both facets of career and technical education: (1) the "work skills" body of knowledge that is imparted through career and technical education courses, and; (2) the use of applied methods to promote academic outcomes. Dr. Stone's presentation was very comprehensive in handling both of these points.

Kudos to Jerry Schoenfeld, former legislator and agriculture teacher and current lobbyist for a variety of clients including the agricultural educators, for bringing in Dr. Stone. The "aggies" have done tremendous work over the past few decades staying current and strengthening their programs. Dr. Stone's presentation ran a bit long and prevented the agricultural educators from unveiling one of their latest projects (a program that shows how to embed academic outcomes into the agricultural curriculum). That program will be presented on Thursday in the House Education Reform Committee and I can hardly wait to see it.

Alternative Licensure Deal Struck. As I reported yesterday, the House and Senate agreed to a set of changes suggested by Governor Dayton and Education Commissioner Cassellius and, as a result, a deal on SF 40 (Olson)/HF 63 (Garofalo) has been struck and the bill will be heading to the Legislature for final approval on Thursday. The changes requested by the Governor weren't major, but they do provide some assurance on quality concerns. The final deal requires that there must be a student-teaching component for teachers who take an alternative path to licensure . Also, alternative licensure programs must have a "consultation" level relationship with a higher-education institution. Last year's legislation, which did not pass off the floor of the Legislature, required such a formal relationship.

All indications are the bill will pass, likely on a party-line vote (or close to it) and that the Governor will sign the agreement. The only other thing I heard is that Education Minnesota isn't what I'd describe as enamored with the agreement. It is doubtful that their opposition will be enough to derail the bill's final passage and prevent the Governor's signature. Thus, we will have a compromise on what many observers believe was the likely "low-hanging" fruit in a year that will certainly have more than its share of contention.

I'll keep you posted.

House Education Finance Committee. The House Education Finance Committee spent its hearing time going to school on the integration revenue program. House staffers Tim Strom and Greg Crowe along with Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles and Legislative Auditor program manager Judy Randall provided a very thorough course on the program, outlining the history and growth of the program. With so many new legislators, there were a broad range of questions about the intellectual foundation of the program and whether the tenets upon which the program was originally based have changed.

The debate going forward will be whether the integration revenue program is about closing the achievement gap or moving students around to create more racially-balanced learning environments. The two foci are not mutually exclusive (although the debate often makes one think so). The debate on the program will be very interesting in the year ahead, as the idea of integration revenue certainly has its detractors as well as supporters. Again, I'll keep you posted.

2011-02-28T19:12:00.000-08:00

Rosier Budget Forecast. It's still not a whole bed of roses, but the February budget forecast improved by over $1 billion and the projected budget shortfall for the next biennium now sits at $5.0 billion, down from the $6.2 billion forecasted shortfall predicted in November. The billion dollar improvement almost exclusively comes from increased tax revenues, with income tax collections projected to grow by approximately $489 million and sales tax collections projected to grow by an additional $249 million in the next biennium.

The fund balance for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year also improved dramatically, growing to an estimated $663 million, with the boost in the revenue position being achieved through both increased revenue collection ($97 million) and lower than expected state expenditures ($167 million). Most of the expected correction in the expenditure category comes from a $165 million expected decrease in health and human services expenditures.

Even with the improved revenue situation, expect little movement in the legislative landwehr that is currently in progress. Republican legislative leadership continues to rule out any talk of tax increase, while Governor Dayton--while dropping the temporary 3 percentage point income tax surcharge for income tax filers with incomes in excess of $500,000--has not dropped his call for an increase to high-income earners in Minnesota through the creation of a new tier with a tax rate of 10.65%.

It is important to draw a distinction here (and it's a distinction that you are going to be hearing about a lot throughout the remainder of the legislative session) about the two aspects that contribute to budget shortfalls: the structural and cyclical elements that contribute to budget shortfalls. The structural aspect of the deficit speaks to the balance between revenue and expenditures given an expected level of economic performance. Ideally, revenue and expenditures match, but the vagaries of economic performance create cycles when revenue collections are higher due to higher levels of economic activity, hence the cyclical aspect of budget forecasts.

What we experienced with this budget forecast is a sharp increase in economic performance and an accompanying increase of nearly $1 billion in new revenue collection. This, more than any other aspect, contributed to the improved budget situation, especially as it relates to the next biennium. We frankly don't know if economic performance will continue to soar as it has since last November. A situation may exist (and we hear it all the time from denizens across the entire political spectrum) where the state may be able (conceivably) to "grow" our way out of the deficit, but that is highly unlikely. New permanent revenue in the form of a tax increase or permanent cuts to the expenditure base will have to be part of the final budget solution or we will find ourselves riding the economic performance roller coaster with projected surpluses or shortfalls showing up with the corresponding levels of economic performance.

Think of it this way. Two runners are jogging around the track. One runner is your classic distance runner; moving along at a steady pace. The second runner's pace goes up and down unevenly. After a couple of laps, the second runner falls behind the first runner and depending on the level of energy the second runner has expended, may fall well behind the first runner. After resting up a bit, the second runner may pick up the pace and get closer (and sometimes catch up to or pass the first runner). However, the second runner cannot maintain the fevered pace employed to close the gap with the first runner and will likely fall back behind once again.

In this example, the first runner is the structural budget. The second runner is the cyclical nature of the budget, with its speed an expression of the economic cycle (the better the economy, the faster the pace). Ideally, the runners should run as closely together as possible, but the business cycle simply varies too greatly for that to happen. Thus, state governments need to have budget reserves and cash flow accounts to buffer the state's fortunes during economic downturns. What has happened over the last decade and a half in Minnesota is that there has been a reluctance to make difficult decisions (especially during the Ventura administration, when rebates were handed out like candy) and we've ridden the booms-and-busts of the business cycle.

That will likely end this year. Whether the final resolution contains higher taxes, lower base expenditures, or a combination of both remains to be seen, but suffice to say, the last time the "can" was kicked, it went completely off the road and there won't be another opportunity to employ the same mentality as the Governor and Legislature face the budget situation this session.

Interesting? Can be. Exciting? Sometimes. Nerve-wracking? Every minute.

Budget Forecast Link: http://www.state.mn.us/mmb/

Visitors from the Deep South. You may remember my posting of Minneapolis StarTribune columnist Katherine Kersten's column regarding the impressive gains being made in Florida in terms of overall achievement and the narrowing of the achievement gap over the past decade. A group of Florida education officials addressed both the House and Senate Education committees today, describing some of the measures they have undertaken in an attempt to meet their education goals. The team of presenters consisted of Patricia Levesque, Executive Director of the Florida Foundation for Excellence in Education and member of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush's education policy staff; Dr. John Winn, former Florida Commissioner of Education and current Chief Program Officer for the National Science + Math Initiative; and Dr. Jay P. Greene, endowed Professor of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas and a Fellow at the George W. Bush Institute.

There is no argument that what Florida has accomplished has been extremely impressive. They have put together a comprehensive response to some of the more pressing issues facing the nation's education system. While still trailing Minnesota in some measures of achievement, Florida's achievement growth over the past decade and a half has outpaced Minnesota's.

Here are some of the initiatives Florida has employed to raise achievement:

Grading schools on an A-to-F scale.
Rewards and consequences for results.
End of social promotion.
A command focus on reading by the end of third grade.
Higher expectations for graduation.
Bonuses for schools and teachers for promoting Advanced Placement.
More choice (but still not as much as Minnesota).

It's all made for an interesting stew in Florida and, as I said before, it's hard to argue with the results. But as I reported in my response to Katherine Kersten's column, Florida resources, while still trailing Minnesota in nominal terms, have grown at a faster rate over the last decade than Minnesota's have. Further, Florida appears to have focused its resources in certain areas--especially the promotion of reading--that have produced both short and long term achievement gains.

Dr. Winn also made what I believed was a very pertinent point in regards to how a state agency should help local school districts implement state goals. This is an area where Minnesota needs improvement. This isn't an indictment of the performance of the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE), but with continuing staff cuts at the Department and a seemingly on-going set of disparate education programs being promoted, often one right on top of the other, it is extremely important that as we take our next steps to improve education performance that MDE work closely with school districts in a supportive and partnership role as opposed to being, for lack of a better term, an agency of "scolds."

In all, it was an afternoon well spent as it is interesting to see what other states are doing. While the degree of challenge may differ state-to-state and the elements needing the greatest amount of attention likewise may vary, the similarities in challenges facing school districts throughout the country certainly outweigh the differences and we can all learn lessons in "what works" from other states. So thanks to everyone who made this possible.

Florida Foundation for Excellence in Education Link: http://www.excelined.org/

Alternative Licensure Deal Reached. Governor Dayton announced today through a letter to legislative leadership that a deal has been reached on the alternative licensure issue. It appears that a conference committee will be called and that the changes suggested by the Governor will be added to the legislative package (there was one significant difference between the House and Senate bill in the area of recognition of alternative licenses issued in other states) and the conference committee will then be passed.

It's nice to see this hurdle cleared (if it indeed has been cleared). This was viewed as the low-hanging fruit of the session, as both legislative leadership and the Governor have expressed an interest in getting an alternative licensure system in place. Hopefully, we'll see positive movement by the end of the week.

Governor's Press Release: http://mn.gov/governor/newsroom/pressreleasedetail.jsp?id=9978

2011-02-24T19:40:00.000-08:00

Qualified Economic Offer Heard Today. The House Education Reform Committee was the only education-related hearing held today and it was devoted to a single bill: HF 269 (Downey), a bill that would create a new bargaining option for school districts known as the Qualified Economic Offer (QEO). This bargaining tool was formerly part of the teacher negotiations framework in Wisconsin, but it was repealed when Wisconsin had to cut state funding to education midway through the last decade.

Under the QEO, if a school board offered its teachers wage and benefit increases equivalent to the percentage increase in the basic formula portion of the general education formula, the teachers could not strike. The Minnesota Business Partnership provided testimony in support of the bill, seeing it as an opportunity to hold down teacher salary increases, which would in turn allow districts to prevent lay-offs of its less senior teachers. In his testimony, Jim Bartholomew from the Minnesota Business Partnership pointed out that a vast number of teacher settlements reached over the past decade-and-a-half have exceeded--in percentage terms--the biennial increase in the basic formula.

It's hard to argue with that, because total package increases usually do exceed increases in the basic formula for a lot of different reasons. First, there is the simple fact that step-and-lane increases are almost universally automatic in Minnesota school districts. Second, the basic formula is not the only source of revenue available to school districts. There are categorical formulas and referenda that also contribute to school district general funds available for negotiating purposes. Further, school districts have fund balances that are often used to augment increases in the general fund to help close up negotiations. Lastly, some school districts are growing, which puts more revenue into the system and, provided the district can still accommodate the growth in its current facilities and run to scale, add to the size of negotiated settlements.

While the QEO would basically put an end to salary and benefit negotiations, other non-monetary financial items would still have to be negotiated. Roger Aronson, legal counsel and lobbyist for both school principal associations, pointed out that these items may be more likely to end up in arbitration or litigation if districts cut off negotiations on financial issues as they would be isolated from a comprehensive negotiating framework.

This is an interesting concept and one that will likely receive more attention as the session wears on. There are a number of changes to the current negotiations framework that have been introduced (repeal of January 15 deadline/salary freeze) and something will likely be done in this area before the session ends. Whether these changes will be permanent or simply in effect for the next biennium remains to be seen, but I would venture a guess that some changes to the negotiations process will be passed and signed.

Whither Alternative Teacher Licensure? Beth Hawkins at MinnPost writes an interesting story today about the loss of momentum toward quick passage of an alternative licensure program this session. A month ago, alternative licensure appeared to be the "low hanging fruit" with bi-partisan support that would show that the Republican Legislature and DFL Governor, but SF 40 is sitting in the Senate after being returned from the House in a different form.

The fact that the House amended the bill does not seem to be the problem. Instead, Governor Dayton is urging some changes to the bill that would be incorporated during a conference committee. In the absence of these changes, the bill would likely be vetoed and the prospects of bi-partisanship dimmed in the process. The month of March will see almost no discussion of education policy, as the entire Legislature plans to have their budget bills finished by end of the month. Hopefully, accord on the alternative teacher licensure bill can be reached before then.

MinnPost story: http://www.minnpost.com/learningcurve/2011/02/24/26077/alternative_teacher-licensure_bill_sits_in_senate_as_compromise_is_sought

Indiana Legislators Go AWOL Over Voucher Bill. It's not just Wisconsin Democrats who have literally changed positions by going AWOL. Indiana Democrats in that state's House of Representatives, in protest of Governor Mitch Daniels' proposal to expand school vouchers that could be used for private school tuition, fled to Urbana, Illinois. If the Democrats do not return to the Indiana statehouse by Friday, the voucher bill will die for this session due to the budget process in Indiana.

Should be interesting.

Link from West Lafayette Journal-Courier Online: http://www.jconline.com/article/20110224/NEWS/102240320/Controversy-over-school-vouchers-swirls

2011-02-23T19:40:00.000-08:00

Short, Sweet (and a Little Bit Spicy) Wednesday. Two education-related meetings today; one in the House and one in the Senate. The House Education Finance Committee discussed HF 442, sponsored by Representative Jennifer Loon (R-Eden Prairie). HF 442 repeals the 2% staff development set-aside and the 50% to individual sites/25% to district-wide initiatives/25% to exemplary programs distribution formula that governs district staff development revenue.

While this provision has been discussed as part of several other bills in both the House and the Senate, HF 442 goes further than a simple repeal of the set-aside and distribution formula and re-writes other portions of the staff development statutes. One of the more dramatic changes is that HF 442 makes the development of a state development plan through the local staff development committee process permissive instead of mandatory. The only caveat is that if a district sets up a staff development plan under MS 122A.60, Subdivision 1, it then must have a local staff development committee. How this would change current practices at the local level is anyone's guess, but things would probably not change drastically from what is now being implemented.

Testimony on the bill was pretty much as expected with management four-square behind the bill and the teachers' union against. Not much new here, but because the bill was the only item up for discussion today, the committee had the opportunity to probe more deeply into how staff development funds are generated, reserved, and distributed and what kinds of activities are supported through the staff development fund.

I will say that the committee meeting got a bit exciting as rhetoric heated up (and it wasn't even really related to this bill). Without naming names, I'll describe it this way. The party of the first part made a comment to the party of the second part regarding an item that wasn't directly related to the bill. The party of the third part thought the comment was acerbic (my word) and questioned the intent of the party of the first part's comment. There was then an exchange between the party of the first part and the party of the third part, with the party of the first part trying to discern the nature of the party of the third part's complaint. The party of the fourth part then intervened and worked to clear up the misunderstanding between the party of the first part and the party of the third part without excusing the party of the first part for the comment, which the party of the fourth part also found inappropriate in the circumstances. There was no backing off from comments, but all parties pledged to keep debate to point in the future. All of this was accomplished with everyone using their inside voice. Clear enough? If not, you'll have to check the tape.

The Senate Education Committee covered four items during its afternoon hearing. The Minnesota State Academy for the Deaf (and Blind) and the Perpich Center for the Arts gave reports on their operations and their priorities for the year ahead. After those presentations, attention turned to SFs 209 (Daley) and 242 (Bonoff), identical bills that would repeal the short-term borrowing provision allowing the state to withhold state aid payments to school districts to meet state cash flow issues. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion in the omnibus education funding bill. The last bill discussed today was SF 185, another bill sponsored by Senator Bonoff (DFL-Minnetonka), that would keep the aid payment schedule for a charter school that almost exclusively serves special education at 90%/10% instead of being dropped to 70%/30%.

That did it for today.

2011-02-22T19:49:00.000-08:00

Three-for-Tuesday. It was the usual three education-related committee meetings and all completed their work with dispatch. The morning kicked off with more discussion on HF 511, the bill sponsored by Representative Sondra Erickson (R-Princeton) that was laid over from last Thursday, in the House Education Policy Committee. HF 511 is another in a line of mandate-relief bills. Some of the provisions (repeal of January 15 bargaining deadline penalty and the maintenance-of-effort provisions for school district support personnel) are contained in other legislation, but I would not be surprised if multiple "vehicle" bills are needed to achieve progress in the area of mandate relief.

The House Education Finance Committee had a very abbreviated meeting in which they discussed HF 576, sponsored by Representative Tim Kelly (R-Red Wing). Hf 576 would permanently set the aid payment shift at 70%/30%. It passed on a unanimous vote and is slated to be part of the House omnibus education funding bill.

The Senate Education Committee was dedicated to a presentation of the Governor's budget by Commissioner Brenda Cassellius, Dr. Tom Melcher, and Bob Porter. To this point, we have only seen the numbers related to the Governor's proposal and not the language. I am certain there will be more in terms of policy, a vast amount of it non-controversial, that will be revealed once the language to the Governor's bill is available.

Nice to See to SEE Members at the Capitol. A set of MASA Region 5 superintendents were at the Capitol meeting with their legislators today. Included in the group were Pine River-Backus superintendent Cathy Bettino and Brainerd superintendent Steve Razidlo. I had the chance to meet with the group early in the day and it was great to see their energy. Here's hoping they made some headway with their local legislators as we all work together to protect education funding during these critical times.

2011-02-17T20:30:00.000-08:00

Correction!!!!!! I'm not going to bury my corrections at the end of the blog. I'll 'fess up when I make an erroneous statement, so here goes. Yesterday I reported that the Governor's education budget proposal sought to pay the entire shift back by the end of the next biennium. That was an incorrect characterization on my part. Instead, the Governor proposes that the shift be bought back by 2% increments over the next decade. In the event the economy picks up and the state revenue collected allows the replenishment of the budget reserve, cash flow account, and the automatically-reduced state aid and property tax recognition shifts, the amount the shift bought back will be at least two percentage points with the automatic portion being credited first.

Great Week of Hearings. I'll have to admit that these week's hearings were informative with some interesting discussion and presentation of a couple of bills that will likely find their way into the omnibus education funding bill. As I reported Tuesday, the Senate Education Committee heard three bills dealing with total operating capital on Monday, with one of those allowing an annual transfer by board action of $51 per pupil unit from the total operating capital fund to the general fund. Those bills were heard in the House Education Funding Committee on Tuesday afternoon and I fully expect those bills to be part of the legislatively-developed education packages that will be assembled over the coming month.

Wednesday afternoon's House Education Funding Committee meeting was dedicated to the subject of early childhood education with opinions on the value of these programs debated (yes, there are some skeptics regarding the value of early childhood education).

Thursday morning's House Education Policy Committee featured the discussion of two bills. The first was Representative Mary Kiffmeyer's (R-Big Lake) HF 355--the companion to Senator

Gen Olson's SF 69--that streamlines the reporting requirements for home schools. The second bill was Representative Sondra Erickson's (R-Princeton) HF 511, a bill that proposes to repeal or revise a number of mandates. This bill marks a second step in the mandate repeal effort (although one proposed repeal--the elimination of the maintenance-of-effort provision for school support personnel--is found in several other bills that have been approved at the committee level) with several new mandates injected into the discussion for possible repeal or revision.

Included in HF 511 are a postponement of the review of the social studies standards for four years along with a requirement that the new standards be reviewed by the Legislature; the ability of a district to limit the number of 403 (b) vendors for employees; a prohibition on the Department of Education promulgating new special education rules without specific legislative authority; and a requirement that the Commissioner of Education approve any requested fund transfer applied for by a school district in the 2012 and 2013 fiscal years. Representative Erickson's bill takes another important step toward making life a bit easier for school districts without compromising fiscal or program integrity.

Today's Non Sequitur Moment. When I jumped in the car this morning, I noticed it was extremely foggy. When it's extremely foggy, I think of the song "The Foggy, Foggy Dew." And when I think of that song, I think of the singer who made it famous, the one and only Burl Ives.

In honor of the late Mr. Ives, I thought I'd share these interesting facts about his life.

Born in 1909 in Jasper County, Illinois.
Played football at Eastern Illinois University but dropped out of school during his junior year, actually walking out of an English class during a lecture on Beowulf, as he had come to the conclusion he was "wasting his time."
Jailed in Mona, Utah, as a vagrant in the 1930s, when he was traveling around as an itinerant singer, for singing the aforementioned "Foggy, Foggy Dew," which the city officials deemed a "bawdy" song.
Served in the US Army during World War II.
Blacklisted during the "Red Scare," but was re-instated after appearing before the House Un-American Activities Committee after admitting he had attended union meetings, but was not a member of the Communist Party. Didn't "name names," but his appearance caused a rift with longtime friend Pete Seeger (they reconciled later in life). When asked by the Committee whether he knew any Communists, he supposedly replied "You know who my friends are. You will have to ask them if they are Communists."
Won an Oscar for his role in The Big Country. Other movie credits include Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, East of Eden, and Desire Under the Elms.
Portrayed Johnny Horizon, the fictional spokesperson for the United States Bureau of Land Management and its "This Land is Your Land--Keep it Clean" campaign of the 1970s.

All this and more at the Wikipedia Burl Ives entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burl_Ives

Here's hoping you are reading this before whatever social event you'll be attending this weekend so you can wow your friends with all things Burl Ives.

The Great Burl Ives

2011-02-16T10:49:00.000-08:00

Forgot about the Shift. In my earlier post on the Governor's budget recommendations, I neglected to mention that the document calls for the maintenance of the education shift at its current level of 70% current year/30% subsequent year. This saves the state approximately $1.3 billion and closes the projected $6.2 billion revenue shortfall by that amount. The Governor's budget proposal does call for a repayment of the shift beginning next biennium in two increments of ten percentage points apiece, bringing the funding schedule back to 90%/10% by the 2015 fiscal year.

Here is a link to MinnPost's Beth Hawkins' story on the shift (note the quote from our good friend Mary Cecconi over at Parents United): http://www.minnpost.com/learningcurve/2011/02/16/25848/the_funding_stability_in_daytons_education_plan_draws_applause

I'm all for paying back the shift as soon as possible, but I'm also for protecting the base level of funding going to Minnesota school districts. I've always thought of the shift in the same way as the food spread at the Lundell family reunion. A lot of it looks horrible, but it tastes better than it looks. In other words, the shift is ugly policy, but it beats going hungry.

There is no question that increasing the shift has caused more districts to utilize short-term borrowing and that has had a very uneven effect district-to-district. District size and other factors contribute to a system where borrowing rates vary and, in some instances, the available interest rate for districts can be relatively high given perceived market interest rates.

I don't think there is any doubt that the 70%/30% payment schedule will be part of the budget solution as we move forward in the short-term. Even though the Governor's proposal to pay back the shift is something we can all support, I'm not certain the shift can be taken back to the 90%/10% level on a schedule as aggressive as the one the Governor proposes.

2011-02-16T08:38:00.000-08:00

Dayton's Education Budget. Consistent with his campaign promises, Governor Dayton did increase the K-12 education budget by approximately $50 million with a slated $33 million proposed for all-day, every day kindergarten. Under the Governor's plan, kindergarten students who qualify for free or reduced price lunch living in a district that provides all-day, every day kindergarten will have their pupil weighting raised from 0.612 (the current kindergarten student weighting) to 1.0.

The Governor's budget also proposes $11 million for a grant program that recognizes excellence in education, $5 million for an innovation fund aimed at closing the achievement gap, and $2 million for an early childhood program rating system.

MDE link for Governor's E-12 Budget Summary: http://education.state.mn.us/mde/index.html

Full Education Budget Link (all 275 pages): http://www.mmb.state.mn.us/doc/budget/narratives/fiscal11/education.pdf

Education Budget Link (short version): http://www.mmb.state.mn.us/doc/budget/profiles/education.pdf

Stay tuned. More to come.

2011-02-16T06:38:00.000-08:00

Here Comes the Budge(t). Apologies to African-American burlesque comic of days gone by "Pigmeat" Markham and his 1968 novelty hit "Here Comes the Judge," but here comes Governor Mark Dayton's initial budget. Not a ton of surprises here, as the basic thrust of the budget is consistent with his campaign platform and early statements as Governor. Some of the details differ slightly from what I expected, but the tone and direction is clearly in line with what has been heard in the past.

The obvious bone of contention is going to be the income tax increase Governor Dayton has proposed to both pay for new programs, preserve local government aid at its current levels, and prevent budget cuts. Governor Dayton's proposed income tax increase would raise the marginal tax rate to 10.95 percent for single filers with incomes in excess of $85,000 and couples with incomes of approximately $150,000. The Dayton proposal also calls for a 3 percentage point--for a marginal rate of 13.95 percent--temporary income tax surcharge for filers with incomes in excess of $500,000. The initiative has been labelled the "5% solution," as approximately five percent of Minnesota income taxpayers are affected by the proposed increase.

To say this has ignited a firestorm of criticism goes without saying. The "tax increase versus cuts" debate will now officially ensue along with the "benefit principle versus progressive taxation" debate. Be prepared for a long stare-down and we'll see who, if anyone flinches. There will be wiggle room on a lot of what is discussed this year, but the state resource question may well be intractable, at least at this juncture.

I'm sure we are going to see several "super rallies" on the Capitol grounds as the session continues with all viewpoints from anti-tax to preserve or increase spending will be represented. In another note, it appears small plane piloting and air traffic controlling are going to be growth industries for the next few months, as both the Governor and legislative leadership are scheduling fly-arounds to promote their viewpoints in the budget debate.

Quoting Bette Davis from "All About Eve," "Buckle your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy night."

Links:

Dayton Budget Proposal: http://www.mmb.state.mn.us/ (Go to FY 2012-2013 Operating Budget Links).

Governor's Office Press Release: http://mn.gov/governor/newsroom/pressreleasedetail.jsp?id=9777

StarTrib (Tax Angle): http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/116286549.html

StarTrib (LGA): http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/116205744.html

StarTrib ("The Reckoning"): http://www.startribune.com/projects/113447034.html

MinnPost (Tax Angle): http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2011/02/15/25833/daytons_budget_offers_a_chance_to_explore_the_rationale_for_collecting_more_taxes

MinnPost (Another Tax Angle): http://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2011/02/15/25827/daytons_budget-balancing_plan_relies_heavily_on_41_billion_in_new_income_taxes

MinnPost (Mary Lahammer Blog): http://www.minnpost.com/marylahammer/2011/02/16/25861/governor_dayton_releases_budget

2011-02-14T18:44:00.000-08:00

Floridarrrrrrrrr! I read Katherine Kersten's editorial about all the great things that are happening in Florida in terms of education results and thought I'd look up a few things, not to discredit her piece, but to try to put it in greater context. The crux of Kersten's article is that Florida has be implemented a number of reforms, most revolving around greater choice for parents, since 1999 and that they are showing positive results. There's no question that results in Florida look solid, but when I dug a little bit, I unearthed something that Kersten may have missed.

Since 1999, per pupil funding (as measured by Education Week in its annual Quality Counts publication) has grown by just over 63% in Florida (from $6,008 per pupil to $9,810 per pupil). By contrast, Minnesota's per pupil support has grown by just under 41% ($7,384 per pupil to $10,396 per pupil). Even with considerable increase in Florida's funding level, it still comes in behind the level of per pupil spending in Minnesota by almost $600 per pupil. While Florida's adequacy grade has only risen to a C- from a D+, Minnesota's has fallen from a B+ in 1999 to a C in 2008. Florida's education spending as a percentage of state GDP has remained at 3.6%, while Minnesota's has fallen from 4.2% to 3.7% That's a sobering set of statistics for those who take pride in Minnesota's record of support for public education.

Money isn't everything, but it is something. And while Florida still ranks in near the bottom in national funding rankings, it is obvious that they have spent wisely and have created some programs that are having desired results. I'd be tempted to say they have "invested" in their future except that it appears the term "invest" always causes a verbal dust-up (in fairness to legislative leadership, "investments" do cost money and when you don't have money to "invest," such moves are certainly wide open to criticism).

What the whole debate says to me is that it is unfortunate when the "reforms" vs. "resources" debate is framed as an either/or when it's really a both/and. In other words, both "reform" and "resources" are important and they need to work together to get results to where they need to be. We are probably past the time when legislatures will continue to pour resources into the education delivery system "as is." But at the same time, it is important to realize that reforms by themselves are not going to deliver results unless they are supported and finances are an important part of that support.

Makes for a great debate and I want to thank Kersten for her insight.

Kersten Editorial: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/115981479.html

Quiet Day at the Legislature. The only education-related hearing was the Senate Education Committee. The bills heard today all dealt with either expanding the uses of total operating capital or allowing an annual transfer from the total operating capital by board resolution.

Senator Latz' SF 166 would allow a district to use total operating capital revenue for school closing purposes. Senator Stumpf's SF 171 would allow a district to use total operating capital revenue for leasing of vehicles, including school buses. Districts can currently purchase vehicles with total operating capital, but are prohibited from using revenue from this category to lease vehicles.

SF 239, Senator Kruse's bill that would allow a district to transfer $51 per pupil (1% of the basic formula amount) from the total operating capital fund to the general fund. This bill generated the most discussion, as the issue of local control versus the importance of reserving revenue in certain funds for restricted use received a full vetting. Although I didn't testify before the committee, the reason for the reserved capital fund is the fact that "windows and roofs don't testify before school boards."

More Twitter News. I guess Mark Dayton couldn't stand the fact that Karl Rove was following me on Twitter, because the Governor is now also following yours truly. No word yet as to whether Justin Bieber will be following me on Twitter by the end of the week.

2011-02-12T12:07:00.000-08:00

I've Made the Big Time! Karl Rove is now following me on Twitter! I'm sure he's looking for solid advice so I'm expecting a lot of questions. My tongue is sticking into my cheek so far as I right this that I think I sprained it.

Session Playlist #3. I dug into my massive 40+ GB music library to put together this week's playlist based on the theme of "dancing." You may remember that I referenced the dance of politics late last week in a thread and so, with no further delay, a playlist dedicated to it.

Track #1--"Do You Want to Dance?"--The Beach Boys

Track #2--"Let's Dance"--David Bowie

Track #3--"Land of 1,000 Dances"--Wilson Pickett

Track #4--"Mystery Dance"--Elvis Costello

Track #5--"Ten Cents a Dance"--Anita O'Day (Quite a bit of inflation since this was recorded!)

Track #6--"Politics of Dancing"--Re-Flex (Another Classic Motor Company dance floor fave!)

Track #7--"Dancing Machine"--Jackson 5

Track #8--"When You Dance (I Can Really Love)--Neil Young and Crazy Horse

Track #9--"Shall We Dance?"--Ella Fitzgerald

Track #10--"Every Dance"--TaMara and the Scene (The Twin Cities' own!)

Track #11--"Dance, Dance, Dance"--The Steve Miller Band

Track #12--"Dancing in the Street"--Martha and the Vandellas

Track #13--"And We Danced"--The Hooters (No relation to the terrible restaurant)

Track #14--"All She Wants to Do is Dance"--Don Henley

Track #15--"Dance the Night Away"--Van Halen

Track #16--"Slow Dancer"--Boz Scaggs

Track #17--"Dance of the Infidels"--Bud Powell (All-time great jazz pianist!)

Track #18--"Dancing in the Moonlight"--King Harvest (1970s AM Gold!)

Track #19--"Dancing Queen"--ABBA (greatest thing from Sweden since my great-grandfather)

Track #20--"Dancing in the Dark"--Charlie "Yardbird" Parker (not the Springsteen song)

Track #21--"Save the Last Dance for Me"--Emmy Lou Harris

Track #22--"Last Dance"--Donna Summer

With Valentine's Day up on Monday, expect a new playlist highlighting that holiday next week!

2011-02-11T10:31:00.000-08:00

So Much for the Preliminaries. Governor Dayton vetoed HF 130, the nearly $1 billion package of cuts passed by the Legislature, shortly after the bill hit his desk yesterday afternoon. The Governor's objections were fairly straightforward, although he threw in a constitutional objection to the bill as well as stating his disagreement with the thrust of several policies in the bill.

The Governor's reason for the veto are as follows:

Cuts to local government aid will raise property taxes, which are regressive and take the state in a direction away from his goal of making the state's state and local tax framework more progressive.
The bill makes "inaccurate and undocumented assumptions about the amounts (of revenue) not yet encumbered for this fiscal year." The Governor states this is a failure in the Legislature's oversight responsibility. In taking this tack, the Governor contends that the Legislature has acted unconstitutionally in that it did not change the parameters of the programs involved and have left responsibility for making policy changes to the Executive Branch and that this is the same approach that made the 2009 actions by then-Governor Pawlenty unconstitutional.
HF 130 is a "piece-meal" approach passed at a time when a comprehensive package is needed.

Link to the Veto Message: http://mn.gov/governor/images/HF130-Veto.pdf

Things have been quite civil up until now and both sides have been disagreeing politely, but there were a couple of statements in the Governor's State of the State address that not surprisingly rankled Republican legislative leadership (and the former Governor), so things will likely be heating up, especially after the Governor releases his budget next Tuesday. It's going to contain a proposed income tax increase and I don't think anyone will be surprised by the reaction that will produce.

Two different world views are at work here and there's nothing wrong with a little "spice in the chili" as these two sets of viewpoints try to iron out a workable state budget solution, but I hope the discussion stays within the boundaries of the reasonable in terms of tone. As Senator Geoff Michel said in the StarTribune story, "We're going to have a clash. And that's okay." Conflict, verbal or otherwise, is rarely comfortable, but given what appears to be the generational, philosophical, and political differences in play, conflict is unavoidable. This is what democracy is about and as long as no one tries to re-enact the South Carolina Senator Preston Brooks' 1856 caning of Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner on the floor of the United States' Senate, I think we're okay.

StarTrib story: http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/115809399.html

Pioneer Press story: http://www.twincities.com/ci_17356398?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com&nclick_check=1

MinnPost story: http://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2011/02/10/25714/gov_mark_dayton_wastes_no_time_in_vetoing_gops_900m_deficit-cutting_bill

Alternative Licensure Passes House. SF 40 (HF 63), Senator Gen Olson's and Representative Pat Garofalo's alternative teacher licensure bill passed the full House yesterday by a vote of 72-59. The vote was almost party-line, but a handful of each party went against the overwhelming majorities of their respective caucuses. The main difference between the House and Senate bills revolves around the the issue of reciprocity, meaning the recognition of alternative licenses granted in other states. The House has a streamlined reciprocity process while the Senate has no reciprocity in their bill. The bill now heads back to the Senate, where a decision will be made whether or not to accept the House's version of the bill. If the Senate does not accept the changes, there will be a conference committee early next week.

The fate of the bill after an accord between the two legislative bodies is reached is anyone's guess. Governor Dayton wants to do something in the area of alternative licensure, but it is unclear whether or not this bill will meet the criteria he seeks in an alternative licensure program.

You Too Can be a Legislator! Admit it, it's what you've always wanted! MinnPost Sharon Schmickle has constructed this interesting little exercise at the MinnPost site that allows you to balance the state budget "your way" (move over Burger King). Fun to try and instructive as well.

"You fix the Minnesota budget" link: http://www.minnpost.com/fix_minnesota_deficit/

We're Not Alone. I posted an article from Wisconsin earlier in the week showing that Minnesota is not alone in its crucial debates over education budget and policy matters. Here are two articles from the Iowa Independent, a web-based publication (part of the American Independent network) that follows Iowa politics and government outlining what is happening in our neighbor to the south.

"Showdown" article: http://iowaindependent.com/51952/showdown-over-education-funding-likely-next-week

"Branstad" article: http://iowaindependent.com/52035/branstad-wants-stability-for-education-funding-while-regents-face-cuts

2011-02-10T12:52:00.000-08:00

Meeting with Legislators in St. Michael. The reason I was unable to blog about the Governor's State of the State Address until today is because I was at an event organized by the Wright and Sherburne County superintendents and school boards which featured four area legislators. Thirteen school districts (12 of them SEE members) gathered at the St. Michael-Albertville Middle School West to discuss pertinent issues facing Minnesota school districts during these tight budget times.

The four legislative priorities presented to the legislators were:

(1) Approval of the mandate relief--including the salary freeze--in SF 56.

(2) Repeal of state-imposed special education laws and rules that exceed federal laws and rules.

(3) Re-examination of state testing policy to reduce tests which are not helpful in terms of instruction to students, teachers, and other school personnel.

(4) Increased equalization of the referendum, debt service, and other levies.

The administrators and school board members from the districts did an excellent job presenting each of these points clearly, concisely, and passionately. These districts are up against the wall and all of the presenters made it clear how valuable support of these measures would be in helping make scarce dollars go further or, in the case of equalization policy, make the property tax system as it relates to school districts more fair. I want to single out St. Michael-Albertville Board Member Doug Birk for his excellent presentation on equalization policy.

The districts present last evening are all low-revenue, low-property value districts. In other words, they are behind the proverbial eight-ball when it comes to the distribution of revenue under the various state formulas and it takes more tax effort to raise locally-generated funds. Events like the one held last evening go a long way toward building a stronger link between school districts and legislators and I would encourage all SEE members to consider putting together a similar event.

I want to commend the legislators for taking time out of their busy schedules to attend the event. Those in attendance included Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch (R-Buffalo), Senator Dave Brown (R-Becker), Representative Mary Kiffmeyer (R-Big Lake) and Representative Joe McDonald (R-Delano).

Speaking of SF 56. SF 56 is Senator Dave Thompson's (R-Lakeville) bill thats: (1) repeals the staff-development set-aside; (2) repeals the maintenance-of-effort language as it pertains to school counselors, school social workers, and other support personnel; (3) repeals the January 15th negotiating deadline and associated penalty for not reaching agreement by that date; and, (4) implements a two-year salary freeze for all school personnel.

Five amendments were offered to the bill, but none were successful. Among the amendments were a re-establishment of the salary limit for superintendents at 110% of the governor's salary, exemption from the salary freeze for special education paraprofessionals making less than $19,800 per year or food service employees who earn either less than $11,000 per year or $12 per hour, and a direction that any revenue saved through the salary freeze be directed to lowering class-sizes. The amendment calling for the re-establishment of the superintendent salary limit was ruled to be not germane to the bill, but all other amendments failed on pretty much party-line votes.

The bill passed on a vote of 36-29.

I Forgot to Link This. My cost estimate for all-day kindergarten came from this report from the Minneapolis Foundation describing the benefits of all-day kindergarten programs. Good report, but it does overlook a number of impediments to districts implementing an all-day kindergarten program. The report is about five years old.

Link: https://www.minneapolisfoundation.org/Uploads/CuteEditor/Publications/Community/All-dayK.pdf

I Also Stumbled Across This Article and Report. There is certainly a lot of concern about the academic performance of students throughout the United States and standardized tests, but this article points out that our standing isn't slipping as much as its holding steady. Perhaps lower than we would like, but not falling off the cliff as some would contend. The obvious response is that even though we aren't number one in the world, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve our scores, but it does point out that a lot of the hand-wringing creates an inaccurate impression.

Article: http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2XOL6F/www.good.is/post/debunking-education-myths-america-s-never-been-number-one-in-math/

Brookings Report: http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2XOL6F/www.good.is/post/debunking-education-myths-america-s-never-been-number-one-in-math/

2011-02-10T08:44:00.000-08:00

State of the State Address. Governor Dayton delivered his initial State of the State Address and the high points deserve mention here. In his five-point plan, the Governor laid out an ambitious agenda that will certainly be difficult to fully implement given the state budget situation and remarks from the loyal opposition after the address bore that out.

Governor Dayton proposed to invest in five areas: (1) job creation, (2) education, (3) transportation, (4) communities and environment, and (5) transformation of government. The Governor called for an income tax increase on the wealthiest Minnesotans to generate the revenue necessary for these investments. The call for an income tax increase was certainly no surprise, as it was a prominent part of Governor's campaign platform.

Increasing funding for education in each year he will serve as governor with "no excuses and no exceptions" was also part of Governor Dayton's campaign platform and he reiterated that commitment in yesterday's speech. In his speech, he also called for reform and special attention to early childhood education issues and full funding of all-day kindergarten in every school district in Minnesota. The price tag, at least the last time I looked, for all-day kindergarten is in the neighborhood of $160 million.

All-day kindergarten is a great idea, but as I am wont to do, I always have to add a caveat or two to pretty much any proposal. Studies show the value of all-day kindergarten, but it's important to keep elementary class-sizes manageable and teaching techniques fresh in the early grades to maintain the benefits an all-day kindergarten program provides. Further, all-day kindergarten may be difficult to implement in districts with space problems, many of whom are either growing districts or districts that have difficulty passing bond referenda. Even with these difficulties, all-day kindergarten needs to be discussed as a valuable, research-based contribution to higher achievement levels for all children and as at least a partial solution to closing the achievement gap.

Governor Dayton also called for the re-establishment of the Governor's Council on Early Childhood Education and the Children's Cabinet. He also called for greater sharing of successful learning strategies developed by individual school districts.

Reaction from legislative leadership was pretty much as expected, with a few twists. The overall theme expressed by Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch (R-Buffalo) and Speaker of the House Kurt Zellars (R-Maple Grove) was that Governor Dayton is "looking backward, not forward." Clearly, some of Governor Dayton's proposals evoke a Minnesota of a generation ago. To some extent, that may overlook current challenges Minnesota is facing in an increasingly global economy, but it also marks a call for needed discussion of what Minnesota "means" for lack of a better term.

I'm a professional quibbler and I've always quibbled with the term "tax and spend." All government is spending that is funded through some type of financial contribution from the general public, whether that revenue comes in the form of fees or from the wide array of taxes that are implemented by governments everywhere. I've always thought it is important to dig deeper than the simplistic term "tax and spend" and get to the heart of which taxes will be implemented and where the incidence of these taxes should fall. It's a complex discussion and one that begs for a shared vision of taxation.

The same thing goes for spending. One would hope that a comprehensive and shared vision of what services Minnesota should provide its citizens and the level at which they should be provided can be developed. It does call for "investment," another term used by the Governor that arched an eyebrow or two amongst the loyal opposition. "Investment" does connote a measure of expenditure and the Governor was short on details as to whether all of the revenue he needed to fund his proposed investments would come from new revenue or if some of it would come from re-allocation of revenue already in the system to more efficient and effective methods.

I believe the most pertinent point raised by Majority Leader Koch and Speaker Zellars is that we do live in a Minnesota that is ever-changing and that many of the circumstances that currently exist call for the development of solutions that fit these circumstances. That certainly calls for a need to be creative about how, and how much, we tax and how, and how much, we spend as a state. Much of what was accepted as the conventional wisdom in the post-World War II era needs to be re-examined and I trust that the discussion moving forward between the Governor and the Legislature will be illuminating.

The differences in worldview that exist between these two branches of government are becoming more apparent, but I believe that a level of comity can be reached. It is going to take awhile, but ever the optimist (which is really difficult for a Scandinavian), I believe an accord on what constitutes a new vision for Minnesota can be reached.

State of the State Links

Governor's Office Press Release: http://mn.gov/governor/newsroom/pressreleasedetail.jsp?id=9690

State of the State Transcript: http://mn.gov/governor/images/State-of-the-State.pdf

MinnPost: http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2011/02/09/25669/the_state_of_the_state_todays_speech_and_the_republican_response_show_minnesota_still_divided

StarTrib: http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/115685624.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUCDEaLDyE7DyaU

PioneerPress: http://www.twincities.com/ci_17346266?nclick_check=1

PS--Governor Dayton took a swipe at how state government was run under the Pawlenty administration. Here is former Governor Pawlenty's response: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/02/10/pawlenty-dayton-criticism/

2011-02-08T18:03:00.000-08:00

Another Long Tuesday. Tuesday marks the day of the Education Triple Header at the Capitol and State Office Building with all education-related committees meeting. The day kicked off with an illuminating hearing at the House Education Policy Committee. After a thorough discussion of the Permanent School Fund and the Permanent School Fund Advisory Committee, the panel turned to an in-depth discussion of Minnesota's school assessment statutes and the Planning, Evaluation, and Reporting statute that governed accountability in Minnesota prior to the implementation of standardized testing as a measure of school effectiveness.

Perhaps the most interesting document discussed at today's meeting was a 1972 Citizens League study entitled: Accountability in Schools: Not a Threat, but Real Hope. The study was more than a blast from the past. Looking through it, you see the discussion that led to the Planning, Evaluation, and Reporting statute taking shape along with the whole debate over testing policy. Also, the seeds of policies like site-based management, school choice, and organized parent involvement are also present in the report.

One of the highlights was testimony on the report by education reform leader Joe Nathan, who served on the Citizens League committee that developed the report. Nathan set the tenor of the times and described the proceedings with flair. Coming in the wake of the 1971's Minnesota Miracle, the report truly did lay the groundwork for a number of extremely important discussions regarding state education policy that took place in the 1970s and have, in some form, continued to this day.

The House Education Finance Committee heard a presentation on the Principals Academy given by Kent Pekel from the University of Minnesota's College of Education and Human Development. The report outlined the Academy's work and mission.

The final education-related panel of the day was the meeting of the Senate Education Committee. The committee featured discussion and committee approval of Senator Ted Daley's (R-Eagan) bill that requires prospective teachers pass a basic skills test before they can be admitted to a teacher preparation program. The bill was approved after being amended and will head directly to the Senate floor.

After Senator Daley's bill was processed, the committee received a presentation from Vallay Varro, Executive Director MinnCAN (Minnesota Coalition for Achievement Now), the newly-launched non-profit dealing with teacher preparation and achievement. The Powerpoint presentation given by Ms. Varro was very critical of Minnesota's Race to the Top application and used it as fodder to justify the need for an organization such as MinnCAN. Needless to say, the challenges ahead of us all are immense and democracy thrives on more voices even if that can sometimes be an impediment to decision-making.

Meanwhile Across the River. Found this article from today's edition of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and found it interesting. It seems the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) is now willing to support sought-after reforms suggested by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Evers. Wisconsin's State Superintendent is an elected position. Perhaps the bigger surprise in the teachers' union's proposal was the suggestion that the Milwaukee school district be split into a number of smaller districts.

Needless to say, the Milwaukee teachers' union is a bit ruffled by the state organization's suggestion. Further, as the article points out, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction is more than a bit skeptical about the WEAC proposal.

Link: http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/115555889.html

Another Interesting Web Page. Like her or not, newly-minted mega-millionaire (from her deal with AOL) Arriana Huffington's Huffington Post is a pretty decent web page that delivers a wide range of news. They even have an education page. Check it out!

Link to Huffington Post Education Page: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/education/

A Good Way to Start the Day. If you follow Minnesota politics at all, a good way to get a step ahead on the coming day, check out Blois Olson's Morning Take website. You can subscribe to Olson's daily report at his website. Great news, links, and birthday announcements!

Blois Olson's Morning Take: http://morningtake.posterous.com/

2011-02-07T18:33:00.000-08:00

Light Monday. The week kicked off with a single education-related meeting; the Senate Education Committee. Today's Senate hearing mirrored a House Education Funding Committee of a couple years ago, with testimony from Minnesota's Future: World Class Schools. World Class Jobs. Jim Bartholomew testified on behalf of the Minnesota Business Partnership; Peter Hutchinson and Susan Heegaard testified on behalf of the Bush Foundation; and Cecelia Retelle testified on behalf of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. All parties testified in support of the project, which is a joint effort between the Minnesota Business Partnership and the Itasca Project.

The report focuses on both high standards and reform. With the need for higher standards and the challenges of a possible teacher shortage and a growing achievement gap, the report points out a number of straightforward reforms aimed at addressing these pressing needs. Foremost in the recommendations are: (1) aggressive teacher recruitment and retention to put and keep the "best and brightest" in front of the classroom, (2) more tools for principals to improve and support learning, and (3) "relevant and results-oriented information to drive continuous improvement and the success of our students."

A lot of the territory covered by the report is relatively well-worn, but the report does heighten the sense of urgency facing the system. And there are myriad challenges to our system and from our organization's perspective, funding--both in terms of adequacy and equity--is clearly among those challenges. Unfortunately, this report believes that Minnesota's education funding, although it ranks 27th in the nation, is "sufficient, reliable, and predictable." I guess you can't agree with everybody all the time.

Here is the link to the report: http://www.mnbp.com/files/Minnesota's%20Future%20-%20World%20Class%20Schools%20World%20Class%20Jobs.pdf

2011-02-05T10:18:00.000-08:00

Week That Was. Things are starting to click a bit more at the Capitol. The new Legislature seems intent on putting its stamp on the early session proceedings by passing a large budget-cutting bill (HF 130) that basically makes the cuts enacted to balance the budget on a short-term basis permanent. That is clear veto-bait for the Governor, who has stated that he wants the entire $6.2 billion budget shortfall addressed in one comprehensive package instead of in waves. Further, he has yet to release his budget--slated to be unveiled on February 15--and he isn't going to approve legislation that may fly in the face of what is in that budget.

As a result, we find ourselves at the first stand-off of the session and the "dance" has begun. What remains to be seen is whether the "dancing" is going to take the form of an elegant waltz (unlikely) or wild punk rock pogo-ing and slam dancing. My guess it will be somewhere in between, but I don't think anyone is kidding themselves, there's going to be plenty of "dancing" and it's not always going to be pretty (think junior high school dance).

The challenge ahead of the Legislature and Governor is massive and the language and interation between the two bodies of government has been civil up to now and I honestly see it as remaining civil. But civility isn't going to solve the state's problems, making tough decisions will and how and when those tough decisions are going to be made is part of the unfolding process.

As a long-time observer of the political process (okay, okay, hack), I was struck by the fact that the Senate Republican caucus had all 37 of their caucus members support HF 130. This was a tough vote, especially for some of the new legislators who won close races last November. Usually, some of the more vulnerable legislators are given a pass on a tough vote from time-to-time, but it's clear from the outset that the Senate Republican caucus wanted each member to use this as a "statement" vote that shows that the caucus is serious about solving the budget problem (even though HF 130 has about a 0.0000000001% chance of being signed by the Governor, at least at this juncture of the session). Perhaps it's simply a statement, but perhaps it shows a commitment to something deeper, namely a cohesive caucus that is going to not allow much meandering by its members. Should be interesting to watch as the session winds on.

Commissioner Cassellius Shines. No one would confuse Dr. Cassellius with major league baseball's HR king Barry Bonds, but she hit the ball out of the park so far at two legislative hearings Thursday that I wouldn't be surprised that Bonds starting taking batting practice again out of sheer jealousy. Commissioner Cassellius and Deputy Commissioner Jessie Montano appeared before the House Education Policy Committee and House Education Finance Committee on Thursday and both did an excellent job outlining the challenges facing the state in terms of education and also providing insight as to how staffing cuts (two decades worth by my count) have affected the department.

Dr. Cassellius has a compelling personal story and it's obvious as she re-counts that story how much education has meant to her personally and how she wants to use her skills and experiences to help all students in Minnesota have access to programs that will help them realize their potential. What was particularly impressive about Dr. Cassellius was her straightforward, unvarnished language in talking about the achievement gap and--without using the term explicitly--opportunity gap. As she talked about equity issues, I was struck by her knowledge of differences in opportunity that exist and how the state needs to take steps toward addressing them.

Jessie Montano pointed out an interesting statistic in her portion of the presentation, showing that ten years ago, the complement at the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) was 60% state-funded and 40% federally-funded. In ten years, that ratio has flipped, with 60% of MDE is funded through federal money. There are several explanations for this, most notably the promotion of grant programs by the federal government to implement its policy goals, but there is no question that cuts in state revenue to MDE have had a negative effect on maintaining state-funded positions.

I realize that the MDE is often the target of derision for its work with local school districts throughout Minnesota and some of that scorn is warranted, but what has happened (at least in my view) is that the cuts to the department have been deepest in those areas were its actions provided assistance to school districts. Laws, both state and federal, require an element of compliance and those positions, again both state and federal, that deal with compliance have to be maintained, leaving them immune from cuts. As a result, when cuts are made, they often come in areas where school districts have positive interaction with school districts. Just something to think about as we move forward.

Again, congrats to the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner for their straight talk.

Governor Releases Education Program Outline. Governor Dayton and Commissioner Cassellius held a press conference on Friday morning, February 4, releasing their "7 Point Plan for Achieving Excellence." There is nothing particularly earth-shattering about the outline of the plan, but that's not necessarily how it should be judged. There's a time for thinking outside-the-box and there's a time to look at the programs we have in place and how to make those programs more accessible to all and more effective in reaching the state's education goals. There's plenty in Minnesota's educational "box" and what the Governor appears to be suggesting is that we start looking at the contents of that "box" with a more judicious eye and concentrating on what works for Minnesota's students.

The Governor and Commissioner called for an increase in the amount of resources dedicated to education, which will certainly be a tall order given the current condition of the state budget. While there is at least some measure of validity to the notion that current resources could be used more effectively, that doesn't necessarily mean that our schools are adequately and equitably funded. Hopefully the session ahead will lead to improvement in both of these areas.

Closing the achievement gap remains near the top of the Governor's agenda. Minnesota has one of the worst achievement gaps in the nation and the Governor wants take serious steps toward closing it. Like everyone else, I believe closing the achievement gap is extremely important, but closing it should not come at the expense of creating a larger opportunity gap. Closing these related, but different, gaps should not be an "either/or" proposition. Instead, it is a "both/and" proposition and should be viewed in conjunction with one another.

The Governor also wisely wants to invest more in early childhood education and reduce the number of tests being given to Minnesota students. As part of his goal to reduce the number of tests and to make those tests more valuable in measuring student achievement, the Governor proposes that a Test Reduction Task Force be established to develop recommendations in this area.

The Governor also wants to establish a Governor's Commission on Better School Funding to take a look at Minnesota's education funding system and its array of funding streams and determine what, if any, changes should be made. To some, this is just a replay of past Governors' actions and will simply produce another discussion and academic exercise that will result in a report that will simply gather dust on a shelf rather than bring about changes in our funding system.

Whether or not that's the case remains to be seen, but that doesn't mean the exercise shouldn't be undertaken. Significant changes to education funding frameworks are almost universally produced through executive suggestion (or court mandate). Think "Minnesota Miracle" and "Big Plan" and you realize that those were both proposals that came forth from the executive branch. Legislatures by their nature are bodies where compromises to a proposition take place, making comprehensive reform extremely difficult.

In speaking with MDE staff, it is not the intent of this commission to start from scratch, but instead to look at what can be done within the current framework to produce a more adequate and equitable system. Neither the Governor nor Commissioner used their loudest trumpet when they made the statement saying "more resources are needed," but, as I stated above, the statement was made clearly.

I was asked by a reporter, "How can you change the system with no new revenue?" Good point. But just because we don't have revenue now doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about what an improved education funding system should look like and take actions to alter the funding framework for when money is available.

My final observation is that although the program announced by the Governor and Commissioner lacks detail, there should be little argument from the Legislature that anything suggested by the Governor shouldn't be part of the discussion in how to improve Minnesota schools and student learning. The proposal released Friday covers a lot of territory, but it is all territory within a substantive discussion of Minnesota education that contains the broad range of viewpoints can comfortably take place.

In closing, I want to congratulate the St. Croix River Education District (SCRED) for mention of its reading program by the Governor during the press conference. For those of you who aren't familiar with that program, it's an exemplary program that has been a laboratory for innovation for over 25 years. Dr. Kim Gibbons--and her predecessors Dr. Gary Germann and Dr. Chris McHugh--have been, and continue to be, pioneers in reading instruction and the use of Response-to-Intervention strategies. In addition, almost all the members of SCRED are also members of SEE.

Governor's Plan Links

Official Release: http://mn.gov/governor/newsroom/pressreleasedetail.jsp?id=9625

StarTribune: http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/115337199.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUycaEacyU

Pioneer Press: http://www.twincities.com/ci_17298692?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com&nclick_check=1

MNPost: http://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2011/02/04/25515/dayton_education_plan_to_include_increased_funding/?utm_source=MinnPost+e-mail+newsletters&utm_campaign=21ab388677-02_05_2011_The_Latest_from_MinnPost_com2_4_2011&utm_medium=email

2011-02-05T08:44:00.000-08:00

I realize that the MDE is often the target of derision for its work with local school districts throughout Minnesota and some of that scorn is warranted, but what has happened (at least in my view) is that the cuts to the department have been deepest in those areas were its actions provided assistance to school districts. Laws, both state and federal, require an element of compliance and those positions, again both state and federal, that deal with compliance have to be maintained, leaving them immune from cuts. As a result, when cuts are made, they often come in areas where school districts have positive interaction with the department. Just something to think about as we move forward.

Again, congrats to the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner for their straight talk.

Governor's Plan Links

Official Release: http://mn.gov/governor/newsroom/pressreleasedetail.jsp?id=9625

StarTribune: http://www.startribune.com/politics/local/115337199.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUycaEacyU

2011-02-02T19:48:00.000-08:00

Wednesday Report. Two hearings today and while both were interesting, the House Education Funding Committee quickened the pulse a bit more than the Senate Education Committee as the House committee dove into discussion of the repeal of the January 15 negotiating deadline and penalty provision. This is the second House committee that has discussed this issue as the bill--HF 92 (Downey)--was re-referred to the House Education Funding Committee with a recommendation to pass by the House Education Reform Committee last week. The bill is basically identical to Representative Bob Barrett's (R-Shafer) HF 115 and Representative Barrett joined Representative Downey (R-Edina) in presenting the bill.

Representative Downey attempted to make the bill retroactive to the last round of bargaining, when a considerable number of were hit with the $25 per pupil unit penalty that is enforced when districts and their teachers' union do not reach an agreement, but the fiscal note attached to the amendment precluded its being included in the bill.

The usual suspects (myself included) made their usual arguments in conjunction with the bill. Proponents of repeal believe the deadline puts undue pressure on school districts to settle too high and that its repeal would level the negotiating field between districts and their local teachers. Teachers believe the deadline and associated penalty have helped avoid strikes by forcing settlements. My big problem with the teachers' angle is their assertion that the deadline has led to lower settlements. My critique is too long and involved to enter here, but let's just say it's only common sense that in districts where money is tight, the settlements are likely to drag on all the way to the deadline and the settlement will be lower than it is in districts with the financial wherewithal to settle earlier.

After testimony, the bill was laid on the table for possible inclusion in the House Omnibus Education Funding bill.

The Senate Education Committee featured presentations from a set of educators recently recognized by the Minnesota Business Partnership for excellence in providing high quality educational services to their students. The panel included: Troy Vincent, the principal at Farnsworth Aerospace Magnet School (a public K-8 school in the St. Paul School District); Mary Lu Mertens, the principal at Sibley East Elementary School; and Mary Donaldson, the Director at the Concordia Creative Learning Academy (a K-8 charter school in St. Paul). Each of these educators outlined how they are successful in reaching the wide array of students in their schools. The reasons for success are similar--great district and/or school leadership teams, effective and engaged teachers, clear vision and high expectations--but it's always great to hear success stories like these.

The Senate hearing ended with a short presentation from former US Congressman and Minneapolis Mayor Don Fraser. Don will by 87 later this month and his record of public service is pretty much unparalleled in Minnesota history and his ideas remain pertinent to the task in front of the state and nation on educational issues. Fraser appeared today as co-chair of the state's Achievement Gap Committee.

That's it for today.

2011-02-01T18:17:00.000-08:00

Mr. Loquacity. That's me. I got to chime in twice during today's House Education Finance Committee, first on HF 88, Representative Connie Doepke's (R-Wayzata) bill to eliminate the maintenance-of-effort for the funding of guidance counselors, school social workers, licensed school nurses, and school psychologists. The arguments are the same as they have consistently been since this provision was passed in 2007. Those who support the continuance of the maintenance-of-effort provision contend that the number of employees in these categories will be drastically reduced unless they are, for lack of a better term, a protected class within the school workforce.

Those of us who testified against the bill believe otherwise. There are continued complaints that Minnesota ranks 49th in the student/guidance counselor ratio and ranks little, if any, better in the other categories protected by the maintenance-of-effort provision. What that argument misses is that the obverse is as, or perhaps more, likely to be true. What district is going to hire more support personnel if they have to maintain the same level of investment in terms of FTEs going forward? The tight budget times we are currently in the midst of only exacerbate the problem.

No one is even remotely suggesting that the services provided by guidance counselors, school psychologists, and the like aren't valuable. The question is, "What is the best way to make certain these services are made present and maintained?" My point is that if Minnesota wants to remain #49 in guidance counselors per student, this is one way to ensure it because there probably won't be a lot of guidance counselors hired as long as the maintenance-of-effort provision stays in law.

The second shift of my testimony was dedicated to the presentation of our SEE platform. I was given a full half hour to describe the history of SEE, the profile of our member districts, and what we would like to accomplish as an organization during the 2011 legislative session. it was a great opportunity and I want to thank Chairman Garofalo for the opportunity to familiarize new members with our organization.

The other two hearings on this week's "wall-to-wall" Tuesday--the House Education Policy Committee and the Senate Education Committee--consisted of presentations from the Minnesota Department of Education and Aimee Rogstad Guinera from the Data Quality Campaign regarding how data is collected and used in Minnesota. Interesting and pertinent information as the state attempts to get beyond simply collecting "stuff" from school districts and instead assembling data that can provide meaningful measurements and strengthen, if possible, the predictive power of the data collection in hopes of raising student achievement.

Data Quality Campaign Link: http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/

New Study from our Friends at Growth & Justice. Growth & Justice has released a case study describing the Cincinnati school district's amazing success in narrowing the achievement gap for African-American students. In conjunction with the study, Growth & Justice will be hosting a presentation to discuss the study next Monday, February 7, between 10:00 and 11:30 AM at the Coffman Memorial Union Theater at University of Minnesota. Speakers at the conference are Dr. Nancy Zimpher, Chancellor of the State University of New York and Jeff Edmondson, Executive Director of STRIVE, the Cincinnati-based education non-profit that has been working with schools in that city to raise achievement levels.

Here is the link to the Growth & Justice case study: http://www.growthandjustice.org/sites/2d9abd3a-10a9-47bf-ba1a-fe315d55be04/uploads/Cincinnati_Case_Study_01-31-2011.pdf

Here is the link to register to Monday's presentation at the University of Minnesota: http://www.saa.umn.edu/saa/signup/close-the-gap

2011-01-30T18:49:00.000-08:00

Week in Review and Week in Preview. A lot of territory got covered last week in terms of the discussion of education issues. The Senate Education Committee talked everything from a relaxation of home school regulations to the pay freeze (along with mandate relief).

The House Education Reform Committee took testimony on Tuesday from the Minnesota Board of Teaching and Dr. Misty Sato from the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Minnesota. On Thursday, after listening to the report Getting Prepared: A 2010 Report on Recent High School Graduates Who Took Developmental/Remedial Courses presented by representatives of MNSCU. One of the least known, but perhaps most contentious issues, facing education today is the number of high school graduates who are needing remedial course work to put themselves in a position to succeed at the post-secondary level.

Link to Report: http://www.mnscu.edu/media/publications/pdf/gettingprepared10.pdf

After listening to this report, the House Education Reform Committee tackled HFs 92 (Downey) and 115 (Barrett), proposals that would repeal the January 15 negotiating deadline and related $25 per pupil unit penalty. I testified, along with Chisago Lakes Superintendent Mike McLaughlin, in favor of HF 115.

The gist of my testimony was rather straightforward, but I tossed in an angle that was pointed out by the memorandum that accompanied the bill that I believe is grossly under-appreciated in this debate. Unlike what I would term pure labor negotiations, teacher/school board negotiations are a bit distorted. Only in a rare (extremely rare) instance can a school district allow a strike and replace all of the striking employees. That is because teachers are licensed employees and it would be extremely difficult for a school district to be in a situation where available replacement employees could be readily located to fill the slots vacated during a strike. I'm not arguing for lowering teacher licensure standards, but only pointing out that collective bargaining issues get a bit stickier in industries where licensing creates a barrier for employment. The January 15 deadline distorts the system to an even greater extent by putting an artificial deadline in place and should be removed.

The House Education Finance Committee continued to receive testimony from a variety of education organizations pertaining to their legislative priorities. Included in those organizations were the Minnesota Early Learning Foundation (MELF), the Minnesota School Boards Association (MSBA), the Center for School Change, Charter School Partners, and the Minnesota Association of Charter Schools.

On Thursday, the House Education Finance Committee approved Representative Garofalo's HF 63 relating to alternative licensure before turning to Representative Connie Doepke's (R-Wayzata) HF 88, a bill that would repeal the maintenance-of-effort requirement for guidance counselors, school social workers, school nurses, and other support personnel partially funded through the $3 per pupil unit set-aside in the safe schools levy. Faribault business manager Colleen Mertesdorf testfied on behalf of the Minnesota Association of School Business Officials. There was no final vote on the bill as time expired and the bill was laid over until next Tuesday. I will be testifying in support of Representative Doepke's bill at that time. The issue is not with the $3 per pupil unit set-aside. I doubt there is a district in the state that doesn't spend well in excess of that amount of revenue on the employees that fall under the auspices of the maintenance-of-eff0rt provision in the law.

The problem is the maintenance-of-effort greatly reduces the flexibility that school districts have in dealing with tight budgets. Further, because the maintenance-of-effort requires that expenditures remain at least at the level of the previous year's expenditures in the employee classifications protected by the provision. In other words, if an experienced counselor or social worker retired, hiring a less expensive alternative is not allowed; the same amount of service costing less is not permitted. Another problem arises when districts choose to move counseling and other support services from an individual district model to purchasing the services from a cooperative. A district doing that would be cited as not meeting the requirements of current law even though the amount of revenue dedicated to these support services would be the same. Lastly, the maintenance-of-effort provision may actually serve as a disincentive for districts to hire counselors, psychologists, nurses and social workers, especially on a short-term basis, as the maintenance-of-effort provision prevents districts from laying off these employees once hired.

I will also be presenting SEE's 2011 legislative platform at Tuesday's meeting of the House Education Finance Committee. I'm looking forward to putting forward our recommendations and have a chance to discuss our constitutional concerns and how these concerns don't necessitate litigation against the state. Constitutions in their creation are the result of discussion and their on-going application is also the result of discussion. It is my hope that the points in our platform will elicit the type and level of discussion that can make certain that Minnesota's education system is providing access to high quality educational opportunities to students throughout the state.

2011-01-28T12:43:00.000-08:00

This Week's Playlist. It really hit me this week as I watched debate on the House and Senate floors and in committees that there has been a ton of change. Insert your own "Well, duh Brad!" comment here. A lot of new legislators. A ton of new staff. A few new procedures. It all makes for an interesting stew. It's taking some getting used to, but this week's playlist is all about change, as each title has the word "change" or some permutation of it, in the title. If this doesn't help get you with the new program, I don't know what will.

Track #1: "Change of the Guard" by Steely Dan

Track #2: "Changes" by David Bowie

Track #3: "Things Have Changed" by Bob Dylan

Track #4: "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years After

Track #5: "You've Changed" by Billie Holliday

Track #6: "Changes" by Bernard Purdie (instrumental version of the Buddy Miles' hit).

Track #7: "Time Changes Everything" by Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys

Track #8: "Same Changes" by Sam Phillips

Track #9: "Changed Your Mind" by Chris Isaak

Track #10: "Change Partners" by Ella Fitzgerald (not the Steven Stills song)

Track #11: "Change of Heart" by Change (takes me back to the old Classic Motor Company)

Track #12: "It's Been a Change" by Solomon Burke

Track #13: "You Can't Change That" by Raydio (I once met Ray Parker Jr. Impressed?)

Track #14: "You're Gonna Change" by Hank Williams, Sr. (not Jr. or III)

Track #15: "Seasons Change" by Corrine Bailey Rae (to prove I have music from post-2000)

Track #16: "Change of Heart" by Eric Carmen (different song from Change's)

Track #17: "Wind of Change" by Peter Frampton

Track #18: "A Change" by Aretha Franklin

Track #19: "Everything Must Change" by Quincy Jones

Track #20: "A Change is Gonna Come" by The Band (the old Sam Cooke song re-done)

It's a nice mix to listen to while driving around and, corny as it sounds, some of the lyrics of these songs indirectly hit at a lot of the change we are facing. Anyway, next mix coming up next Friday!

2011-01-28T09:32:00.000-08:00

Week Four is in the Books. Things are picking up a bit at the Legislature and the first showdown is looming. The House of Representatives passed HF 130 late yesterday afternoon by a vote of 68-63. HF 130 is the bill that formalizes the one-time reductions made at the end of last session to balance the state budget. The debate on the bill didn't go as long as many anticipated. There were no floor amendments offered and the debate was very concise.

HF 130 now moves to the Senate, where its companion--SF 60--is currently on the Senate floor. HF 130 will be substituted on Monday and it's my guess that the bill will pass at that time. It will then proceed to the Governor where it will be greeted by a veto.

There appears to be a couple of different reasons for a likely (make that near certain) veto. While I assume the Governor objects to a number of elements (DFLers in the Legislature argue that property taxes will rise and critical services, both state and local, will suffer) in the SF 60/HF 130, another angle on this is that the Governor has stated he wants the budget shortfall issue solved in one set of measures passed within a tight window of time. The House and Senate seem to be subscribing to a phased approach that would send various budget-balancing measures to the Governor one at a time and over a much wider time frame.

It's important to remember that process can often have as many political angles as policy and if this is at all frustrating to voters of either party, it's important to remember that this doesn't reach the level of inane discussion of that surrounded the decision of what shape the table should have been at the Paris Peace Talks as the Vietnam War wound down. The dance will continue and I am optimistic that an agreement (perhaps not a happy agreement) will be reached by the end of the session or in a special session. The issues the state is facing are major and there may be some paradigmatic changes in how government services are paid for and delivered as a result of our budget crisis. So, a healthy dose of patience is in order.

2011-01-26T20:42:00.000-08:00

Not a Heavily Scheduled Wednesday, but Things Got Done. Two education-related meetings at the Legislature today. The House Education Finance Committee took testimony from two charter school-related organizations: Charter School Partners (represented by Brian Sweeney) and the Minnesota Association of Charter Schools (represented by Gene Piccolo). Also testifying was Joe Nathan from the Center for School Change.

Not a whole lot to report. The quality bug seems to have infected the charter and choice movement to the same extent as with other parts of the education system. As I wrote the other day, one of my major concerns with the education reform movement over the years, especially as it relates to choice, is that "choice" and "difference" seem to be as much the goal as achievement itself.

Many of you have heard me use this example before, but for those who haven't, when William Bennett spearheaded "A Nation at Risk" in the early-1980s, he made it clear that the movement was all about high standards for everyone and pushed--albeit a bit on the acerbic side--for higher levels of achievement and more rigor in curricular offerings. I was working on education issues at the legislature during this period and the Legislative Commission on Public Education commissioned a study of parents and community leaders on their feelings regarding their schools. The findings were, in brief, although some folks had concerns about achievement levels, everyone pretty much "liked" their local schools and thought that the problem with public education lie elsewhere in the system (the old "I hate Congress, but love my member of Congress" argument). Here we sit almost 30 years later and the shoe is on the other foot to some extent. When parents of charter school students are informed that their particular charter isn't doing that well, many of those parents say "We like our charter school." A lot of this reinforces the "soft" nature of measuring satisfaction in public education and how quantitative measurement is only part of the gig when trying to determine the how consumers view the quality of the experience at the school their children attend.

It is refreshing to see the charter movement taking the next step and being very diligent about measuring achievement levels in their schools and taking aggressive steps to improve achievement at those charter schools they view as under-performing.

The only other things to report from the hearing is that Joe Nathan hailed the report from the Center for American Progress that I kind of gave the backhand to in the blog last week and Gene Piccolo spoke out for increased equalization of the referendum. Say what (you say)? Yes, because equalization aid follows students to charter schools from school districts that qualify for equalization, the erosion of equalization aid due to the failure by the Legislature to adjust the referendum equalizing factors upward to account for property value growth means less money for charter schools. Always nice to have another ally, even when it's when that is unexpected.

The Senate Education Committee heard two bills. The first, Senator David Hann's SF 55, extended the deadline from June 30, 2011, to June 30, 2012, for a charter school authorizer prior to August 1, 2009, to apply to the Commissioner of Education to continue as an authorizer. The committee then turned to SF 69, Senator Gen Olson's bill that relieves some of the mandates that face home schools and school districts that deal with home schools. SF 69 was amended and re-referred to the Senate Finance Committee with a recommendation to pass as amended.

Came Across This Interesting Little Item. The standards debate is taking place throughout the entire country and this little animated video from Rhode Island linked by The Washington Post shows that the tussle over a high-stakes test proposed for students in that state. A lot of the same points have been made here over various testing efforts, but never quite as cleverly as in this video.

Link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/standardized-tests/how-a-single-test-can-change-a.html

It's videos like this that are just one more reason to sign up for Twitter. Since I've signed on with the service, I'm getting a lot of great notifications from the sources that I follow. It's not an intrusive service (like Facebook) as you "follow" whomever you want and you never have to post a thing. There are a number of great education-related sites that send out articles (particularly Education Week). I'm not a great proponent of a lot of the new social media, but count me as sold on Twitter.

2011-01-26T20:02:00.000-08:00

Came Across This Interesting Little Item. The standards debate is taking place throughout the entire country and this little cartoon

2011-01-25T19:30:00.000-08:00

Another Wall-to-Wall Tuesday. Tuesday is clearly education day at the Capitol, with each of the K-12-related committees scheduled to meet and meet they did today. The House Education Policy Committee kicked off the proceedings with more testimony related to teacher training and assessment. The centerpiece of today's discussion was the Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA) Program and Teacher Performance Assessment Consortium (TPAC).

TPA is a partnership between the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). 20 states have joined the TPAC, with six of these states--including Minnesota--being accelerated states. Initial development of the Teacher Performance Assessment was led by national teacher education leaders Linda Darling-Hammond and Ray Pecheone, both of Stanford University.

The presentation on TPAC was given by Minnesota Board of Teaching Executive Director Karen Balmer and University of Minnesota Education Professor Dr. Misty Sato. It was a very informative hearing that again shows how Minnesota is trying to enhance teacher effectiveness.

The early afternoon brought us to the House Education Finance Committee and testimony from the Minnesota Early Learning Foundation (MELF) and the Minnesota School Boards Association (MSBA) describing their goals for the 2011 session. MELF has been extremely active in the promotion of pre-kindergarten education and their primary goal in the years ahead is to make certain that the progress Minnesota has made in raising program quality and improving access to quality pre-school programs is not lost during these tight budget times.

MSBA's testimony outlined their primary goals which largely center on mandate relief, but their conversation also touched on Minnesota's constitution and the need to make certain that Minnesota remain committed to making certain that an adequate and equitable funding system. This segment of the exchange between chief MSBA lobbyist Grace Kelliher and legislators really set up my testimony, which is scheduled for next Tuesday, February 1. I'm really looking forward to picking up this discussion where the legislators left off.

Like the main event at a boxing match, the main event of the education discussion for the day was held last in the Senate Education Committee, where the discussion centered on mandate reform in general and SF 56 (Thompson-R-Lakeville) in specific. SF 56 has four very focused sections dealing with cost containment for schools. The four initiatives contained in the bill are: (1) repeal of the January 15 negotiating deadline, (2) repeal of the reserved revenue in the safe schools levy for school counselors, school nurses, school social workers, and school psychologists and the maintenance-of-effort provision in that section of the law that prevents school districts from lowering expenditures on these positions, (3) repeal of the 2% staff development reserve and the distribution of this reserve on a 50% to sites, 25% for district exemplary programs, and 25% for district-wide staff development efforts, and (4) the grand-daddy of all the provisions in the bill, the statewide school personnel salary freeze.

Testimony on the bill was both straightforward and predictable. Management likes the bill, labor not so much. Included in those speaking on behalf of the bill were two administrators with ties to SEE: St. Michael-Albertville Superintendent Marcia Ziegler and St. Francis Director of Human Resources Jay Reker. Speaking against the bill were representatives from Education Minnesota, the Minnesota School Counselors Association, and SEIU.

The bill passed on a straight party-line vote and now heads to the full Senate Finance Committee. Because there is only one education committee in the Senate, there is no need to move a bill--either policy- or funding-related--from one education committee to another (which will have to be done in the House).

It appears that the Republican majorities in the Legislature are going to try and move a number of major mandate-reduction and budget-cutting measures onto the Governor before he releases his budget on February 15. Doing so will likely result in vetoes, as Governor Dayton is on record as wanting to deal with the entire solution to the $6.2 billion budget shortfall in one broad stroke instead of a larger number of more discrete measures. In other words, we'll likely to see some gridlock, although it appears it will be polite gridlock as no one, at least up to this point, has not not used their inside voice.

Lighter day tomorrow, but I'll be reporting on it nonetheless.

2011-01-25T06:22:00.000-08:00

MinnCAN joins the scene. Another organization joined the Minnesota education reform debate yesterday, as MinnCAN held a kick-off press conference in the Capitol rotunda on Monday morning. The primary focus of MinnCAN appears to be assurance of teacher quality through aggressive evaluation of teacher performance, but I am certain they will engage in a number of elements surrounding Minnesota's education system.

Teacher quality is undoubtedly important and it's the issue that is creating the greatest amount of buzz in the education debate. The early debate at the Legislature this session has centered on alternative teacher preparation along with the assessment of current classroom teachers. How MinnCAN throws itself into this debate will be interesting, but if the attendance and energy at Monday's launch event is any indication, this group is not going to be shy.

I really have to compliment MinnCAN on their mission statement: "We will not rest until every Minnesota student has access to a great public school." The words may be a bit different, but they appear to share our (SEE's) statewide vision of an adequately and equitably funded system of public education. I certainly look forward to working with MinnCAN on issues that will help every student in Minnesota get the public education that they are constitutionally entitled to receive.

MinnCAN home: http://www.minncan.org/

MinnPost Story: http://www.minnpost.com/dailyglean/2011/01/24/25149/new_advocacy_group_declares_crisis_in_minnesota_education

StarTribune Story: http://www.startribune.com/local/114486594.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU

Here's an Interesting Approach to Funding Equity. Our good friend Kathy Saltzman sent me this link last Friday. It's from the Connecticut think tank ConnCAN's website. ConnCAN is the education reform think tank upon which MinnCAN has sprung forth.

The link outlines a funding reform urged by ConnCAN. Under the plan, per student education revenue would be calculated relative to the property wealth of the school district in which the student resides.

I haven't seen the actual proposal, but from reading the description, it would seem to work similarly to Minnesota's compensatory formula in that students in districts that have high levels of poverty will receive more money than students in districts with higher income levels. Either that, or per pupil revenue would be calculated for each district similarly to the way general education formula prior to the elimination of the general education levy as part of Governor Jesse "The (Don't Touch My) Body" Ventura's Big Plan that was passed in 2001.

In either case, ConnCAN clearly wants revenue to follow students to their school--traditional or charter--similarly to how it does in Minnesota.

ConnCAN link: http://www.conncan.org/aboutus/news/conncan-advocates-linking-schools-funding-wealth-students-system

Alternative Licensure Bill Passed Out of Committee. The Senate Education Committee approved SF 40 (Olson), the companion bill to HF 63 (Garofalo), and re-referred it to the Senate Finance Committee on Monday. SF 40/HF 63 is the more aggressive of the two alternative teacher preparation bills being discussed by the Legislature this session (the other bill being Representative Mariani's HF 3, which was an outgrowth of the discussion last session).

Senator Chuck Wiger (DFL-North St. Paul) offered an amendment which was subsequently divided into two amendments. The first segment of the amendment proposed requiring any prospective teacher prepared in an alternative program would have to complete a 90-day practice teaching stint before being licensed. The second portion proposed the full implementation of the Teacher Performance Assessment program (currently being piloted). Both halves of the amendment failed.

HF 63 will be up in the House Education Finance Committee this week, putting alternative teacher preparation on the fast track for legislative approval with final floor votes coming sometime in February. While Governor Dayton has expressed an interest in alternative teacher preparation, it remains to be seen whether the approach taken by SF 40/HF 63 will meet with his approval. While this issue is generally observed as "low-hanging fruit," in that all sides in the political debate seem to recognize the value of an alternative teacher preparation program, there still may be a need for a step ladder to reach the branch where the fruit is hanging. At least we know this isn't the apple at the top of the tree.

2011-01-23T17:20:00.001-08:00

Thoughts on the Weekend. Below is a link from the left-leaning Minnesota Progressive Project on the subject of school choice. The article from their page is a reaction to United States' Secretary of Education Arne Duncan's appearance last Friday at a luncheon sponsored by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. As I read the article, I was struck by the same thought I had twenty-some years ago when open enrollment between public school districts was established in Minnesota.

Granted, the situation is a lot different in 2011 than it was in 1987. Back then, area learning centers and contract alternative programs were just getting their feet under them as part of the statewide education delivery system. Now, those alternative delivery systems are a well-established part of enrollment options in Minnesota and open-enrollment is accepted, although not always joyfully, by school districts. Further, Minnesota passed the nation's first charter school law in 1991 and charter schools now number in the neighborhood of 150 with almost 30,000 students attending charter schools.

The problem is, despite this massive increase in choice initiatives, our achievement gap is as large as ever and the opportunity gap is growing as well. All of this begs the question, "Is school choice a means to an end or an end in itself?" I don't have an answer, although I do find it ironic that many parents stay in charter schools with absolutely miserable performance levels.

Much of this will be sorted out in the years ahead and it would be unfair to characterize Duncan's address as dealing solely with parent choice. But if we are indeed serious about closing the achievement gap, we are going to have to ask, and answer, the tough questions.

Minnesota Progressive Project Article: http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/8251/chartering-a-course-for-privatized-public-education

Star Tribune Editorial on Teacher Pay Freeze. The Sunday StarTribune featured an editorial in support of the teacher pay freeze contained in SF 56 (Thompson-R-Lakeville). The editorial lays out all the pertinent arguments; teacher pay has been rising even during the recession, increased teacher pay when funding formulas don't increase causes program cuts and/or higher class-sizes, and, last but not least, the state is looking at a $6.2 billion revenue shortfall.

Alternative teacher preparation and student assessment may be the primary education issues in the spotlight right now, but rest assured, but the proposed pay freeze (along with other bargaining issues, particularly the January 15 negotiating deadline) will likely be crowding out discussion of a lot of other issues as the session progresses.

StarTribune Editorial: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/114395879.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

2011-01-21T18:16:00.000-08:00

Secretary Duncan Visits Minnesota. Minnesota hosted United States Secretary of Education Arne Duncan at a luncheon arranged by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. It's always an honor when a dignitary of Duncan's renown visits the state and it sounds as though his address, while not presenting a rosy picture of the state of education in Minnesota, did outline some areas of improvement for Minnesota and some idea as to where Duncan would like to take the nation's education system in his role as the top education official in the country.

I was unable to attend the event as I was in Mankato at the Winter Conference of the Minnesota Association for Pupil Transportation, but it sounds as though Duncan's address was interesting (and well attended). Not being there, I can't comment on the exact tenor of Duncan's address, but reports are that he was critical of Minnesota's complacency and that he urged the business community to provide stability for the education system and to work to provide greater input into the shaping of education policy.

In a related item, when reporters as Congressman John Kline (MN-CD2), the Chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, whether or not the House would re-authorize Race to the Top--the Obama Administration's education initiative spearheaded by Secretary Duncan--his answer was a straightforward "no." Kline has gone on record as wanting to increase the federal share of special education funding and there's only so much money to go around, especially in an era when local, state, and the federal government are all trying to put their financial books in better order.

Below are two links from MinnPost regarding Secretary Duncan's visit to Minnesota.

Duncan Visit: http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2011/01/21/25116/education_secretary_arne_duncan_proves_a_tough_grader_in_a ssessing_minnesotas_education_programs

Beth Hawkins Piece on Kline and Duncan: http://www.minnpost.com/learningcurve/2011/01/21/25092/ideological_opponents_kline_and_duncan_now_the_nations_most_powerful_figures_on_education_policy

Thursday Bill Intros. The pace of bill introductions is much slower than it has traditionally been. Part of that may be due to the huge number of new legislators and part of it may be due to the fact that legislators--both new and veteran--may be holding back on introductions, especially those pertaining to the expenditure of state dollars, given the huge shortfall.

Here are the major education-related bill introductions from Thursday, January 20.

HF 133 (Fritz--Trial Placement for Students at Minnesota State Academies): https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/getbill.php?number=HF133&session=ls87&version=list&session_number=0&session_year=2011

HF 163 (Drazkowski--Permanent Repeal of 2% Staff Development Set-Aside and 50%/25%/25% Staff Development Distribution): https://www.revisor.mn.gov/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF163&ssn=0&y=2011

SF 68 (Kruse--Repeal of January 15 Negotiating Deadline and Penalty/Companion to HF 59): https://www.revisor.mn.gov/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=Senate&f=SF0068&ssn=0&y=2011

SF 69 (Olson--Revision of Home Schooling Requirements): https://www.revisor.mn.gov/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=Senate&f=SF0069&ssn=0&y=2011

Speaking of January 20th Introductions. The most prominent introduction I experienced on January 20th was that of my new grand-daughter Siri Marie Eitreim. Siri checked in a 7 pounds, 15 ounces, and is now home in Elk River!

Playlist of the Week. I'm doing a lot of driving around these days (which I thoroughly enjoy), but I get tired of listening to the radio at times (sorry MPR, Paul Hutner's dire weather predictions almost make me drive off the road) so I do a weekly CD burned from my 40+ gigs of music on my computer. Please allow me to indulge myself by sharing with you this week's 70 minutes of road music.

Track #1: Love and Happiness--Al Green

Track #2: Come Together--Ike and Tina Turner (Sorry, John Lennon!)

Track #3: Call Me the Breeze--J.J. Cale (covered later by Lynyrd Skynyrd)

Track #4: I'll Go Crazy--James Brown

Track #5: Prisoner of Love--Billy Eckstine

Track #6: Last Night--The Mar-keys

Track #7: Lookin' for a Love--Bobby Womack (covered later by The J. Geils Band)

Track #8: Who'll Stop the Rain--Creedence Clearwater Revival

Track #9: Don't Dream It's Over--Crowded House

Track #10: Rockin' Daddy--Howlin' Wolf

Track #11: Tempted--Squeeze (this one always finds its way onto my mixes)

Track #12: Wheels--The String-a-longs (early 1960s instrumental)

Track #13: Cherokee Boogie--BR-549

Track #14: Ain't Gwine to Whistle Dixie--Taj Mahal (great live version)

Track #15: Sowing the Seeds of Love--Tears for Fears

Track #16: And Your Bird Can Sing--The Beatles (Here's John Lennon!)

Track #17: The Innocent Bystander--Dan Hicks and His Hot Licks

Track #18: Lost Her in the Sun--John Stewart

Track #19: Spirit in the Dark--Aretha Franklin

Track #20: Head Above Water--Hall & Oates

Track #21: Rock and Roll Girl--The Beat (Oh, the early 1980s Power Pop!)

Track #22: Pretend I Never Happened--Willie Nelson

Suggestions, reviews, and recommendations are always accepted. I have an FM-soul with AM-ears.