We have a budget agreement!  About an hour ago, the agreement on the E-12 budget for the coming biennium was released.  I chose a fireworks graphic both as an indication for celebration and also a symbol of what have been fireworks that have likely been part of the process to get to this agreement.

There are still likely language details but here is the budget framework that was released.

• Basic formula increase of 2.45% for 2021-22 and 2% increase for 2022-23.
• $46.5 million to preserve the voluntary pre-kindergarten seats for the next two years.
• $10.45 million over the biennium for special education cross-subsidy reduction.
• $4 million over this biennium and $4 million in the next biennium to reduce the English Language Learner cross-subsidy.
• $280,000 for American Indian Teacher Preparation Grants (funding in on-going).
• $750,000 in this biennium for the Black Men Teach program.
• $400,000 in this biennium for Come Teach in Minnesota Hiring Bonuses (funding is on-going).
• $250,000 in this biennium for Expanded Concurrent Enrollment (funding is on-going).
• $10 million in this biennium for Grow Your Own (funding is on-going).
• $4.508 million in this biennium for Teachers of Color Mentoring and Retention Incentive Grants(funding is on-going).
• $500,000 in this biennium for Teacher Recruitment and Marketing Campaign (funding is on-going).
• $3 million in this biennium for the Sanneh Foundation (one-time money).
• $3 million in this biennium for LETRS grants (one-time money).
• $1.75 million in this biennium for non-exclusionary discipline training with the House language included.
• $300,000 for Children's Museums statewide (one-time money).
• $1 million for Digital Well-Being Grant (one-time money).
• $1.5 million for Girls in Action (one-time money).
• $1 million for Math Corps (one-time money).
• $150,000 for Minnesota Civics Education Coalition (one-time money).
• $1 million for Right Size College Entrance Examination Reimbursement (one-time money).
• $265,000 for Suicide Prevention Teacher Training Grants (one-time money.

There are agreements on language relating to the notification of environmental hazards, anti-lunch shaming, religious observance school absences, special education COVID recovery, limits on students' screen time, and a suspension on the implementation of new learning standards.

It's important to look at this agreement in the context of where the legislative bodies started going into the negotiations during the regular session and where their positions sat in comparison to the Governor's original budget.  The House target was in the low-$700 million range while the Senate's was around $165 million.  The global budget agreement set the budget target at $525 million, which required the House to move away from its original proposal and giving the Senate the opportunity to move up and direct money to its priorities.  The Senate bill had a much narrower focus than the House bill, so in moving upward, it had the relative luxury of putting money on the formula, especially after it became clear that one of Senator Chamberlain's top priorities--Education Savings Accounts for use in private schools--was not going to gain approval from the Governor.  That led the Senate to put nearly all of its on-going resources on the basic formula.  On the other hand, the House had to constrict its spending and a number of programs that were in the House bill fell by the wayside.

There is always a trade-off between the basic formula and the categoricals and that will play out in the distribution of revenue from this legislation.  The Governor and House put $70.1 million for special education cross-subsidy reduction and $13.6 million for the English Language Learner cross-subsidy reduction, but the House faced the challenge of having to reduce expenditures from its initial target and face the reality that as the timeworn adage goes "you can only spend a dollar once."  A dollar spent on the basic formula can't be spent on cross-subsidy reduction.  Setting the basic formula where it ended up absorbed almost all of the on-going money available to the negotiators, which limited what could be done in other areas.  Maintaining the voluntary-preK slots was a House priority that was able to survive in total, while the cross-subsidy efforts were reduced.

I want to make it clear that money on the formula is a good thing and this is a very healthy increase in a year when I thought it was unlikely that we would reach the 2%/2% goal that most of the education lobby advocated for throughout the 2021 session.  In fact, there are bits of eggs on my face from when I told a group of superintendents right after the adjournment of the regular session that there really was no way 2%/2% was possible given the $525 million target.  I made the assumption--wrongly--that the special education cross-subsidy reduction revenue would survive the negotiations in total, so like many Vikings' fans who predict impending Super Bowl glory, I am duly chastened.

The question is always how dollars are distributed.  If you are a district with a unduly large special education cross-subsidy (everyone has a large cross-subsidy), you would have likely preferred the Governor's and House's proposal.  If not, you are likely pleased with the final bill.  The basic formula is usually the default position as the final landing spot for revenue when there are competing visions regarding revenue distribution and that is what clearly came through in this agreement.

There is little in the bill in terms of new mandates.  It appears there will be some language relating to non-exclusionary discipline (along with grants for training money), but I am hesitant to speculate beyond that.

I will link the bill when the language becomes available.