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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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

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/

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/

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/

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

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

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 the department. 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.

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 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

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.

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