| Almost annually, a debate occurs, one that is getting noisier than ever. This debate is one in which the public, in recent years, has become more and more involved.
The debate to which I refer is that of financing public education.
At one time, the Minnesota legislature included annual inflationary increases in their budget for education-just as they did for all of the other State Departments, including Finance and Transportation. In the 1980s, however, in order to meet its constitutional requirement to balance the State's budget during an economic crisis, the Legislature removed the pre-established increase from the Education budget and has since never replaced it. , the Minnesota legislature included annual inflationary increases in their budget for education-just as they did for all of the other State Departments, including Finance and Transportation. In the 1980s, however, in order to meet its constitutional requirement to balance the State's budget during an economic crisis, the Legislature removed the pre-established increase from the Education budget and has since never replaced it.
As a result, what had been a fairly quiet biannual Education budget discussion within the Legislature has now become the rancorous, divisive exercise that we see being played out today.
At one time, there was at least an acknowledgment, if not agreement, as to what constitutes adequate funding for schools. At one time, adequate funding included the undeniable reality of the need for inflationary increases. At one time, members of both the House and the Senate, and members of both the Republican and the Democratic parties, agreed that education had to be the state's most significant investment. , there was at least an acknowledgment, if not agreement, as to what constitutes adequate funding for schools. At one time, adequate funding included the undeniable reality of the need for inflationary increases. At one time, members of both the House and the Senate, and members of both the Republican and the Democratic parties, agreed that education had to be the state's most significant investment.
That has all changed, culminating with the 2000-01 Education Funding Reform effort, which was, in fact, a property tax relief act, and which was, in fact, under-funded by nearly a billion dollars from the start.
When then-Governor Ventura proposed his plan to simplify the way to fund education, as well as his plan for tax reform, the Legislature quickly embraced the tax relief portion of the plan, but knowingly did not provide a source to offset the reduced revenue stream. They knew this at the time, but they were counting on the economy to remain robust and they assumed that increased sales and income tax revenues could replace the shortfall that they created.
Then, the economy crashed along with the Twin Towers on 9-11, and it has taken the State until now to recover its revenue stream. (By the way, contrary to what some are saying, school districts with declining enrollments actually do receive less revenue than they did before. The school districts' request to the State is not for additional revenues for students who aren't there, but rather for additional revenue for the students who are).
Last year, a special Blue Ribbon Committee was established by Governor Pawlenty to study the issue of school finance. The Committee was to look at how schools were funded, as well as to determine what programs and courses should be funded by the State and which ones should be funded by local school districts. To date, neither gubernatorial nor legislative action has been taken on recommendations from that committee, nor has that committee (or any other committee) been directed to make further recommendations or to do further study.
An obvious conclusion can be drawn: there are no easy answers to complex questions. However, it is important to keep sight of one thing: the State must commit to providing adequate and sustained revenues to school districts for the education of the children of this state. That's a constitutional mandate.
Presently, some legislators and taxpayers are demanding still more accountability from schools. As I emphasized in a previous column, there are already many measures of accountability. I also emphasized that school districts throughout the state have already complied with each measure requested, and then some. To those who ask for more accountability, I encourage them to talk to the finance directors or superintendents of any school district to learn about the accountability that is already in place.
The education funding question isn't simple, and it shouldn't be minimized.
Accountability is essential. So is the need to provide adequate and sustained funding for all children-the very future-of the state of Minnesota. |
