Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 10 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Minnesota needs to fix school funding
Published Tuesday, November 17, 2009
According to the Minnesota Constitution, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools (Article 8 Section 1). Unfortunately, there is little uniformity in the manner in which taxpayers are asked to support local public schools.
The disparities in educational opportunities for students in living in different parts of Minnesota continue to increase. A few weeks ago, the Minnesota Department of Education released its annual report of General Education Revenue Disparity. This report shows for the 10th straight year, the gap in funding that is intended to support basic education programs grew markedly between districts. As demonstrated by cuts made by school districts throughout the state this past year, there is little doubt that schools do not have the funds to maintain the quality programs and services we have come to expect. Our system of funding also appears to be getting more inequitable.
The bulk of the funding disparity is caused by the referendum levy. As a result of years of inadequate state funding, 90 percent of Minnesota school districts have had to ask local voters for additional revenue. Depending upon where a child lives, the amount of local levy varies.
Districts with high levels of property wealth have a distinct advantage in passing levy referendums because of the larger property tax base, usually including significant commercial and industrial property. Homeowners in low property wealth districts often have to pay two or three times as much per $100,000 of home value to generate the same amount of revenue per pupil as a high property wealth district. Thus many districts in the metropolitan area receive significantly more revenue, with fewer burdens on the local homeowner than outstate districts such as those in Freeborn County.
During the 2010 session, the Legislature needs to adjust the state’s levy equalization system to bring greater fairness to local taxpayers and the state’s property tax system. Bottom line, we need to align the states program for funding education to ensure it is consistent with the Minnesota Constitution, and ensure that all students in Minnesota have access to a quality education.
Mike Funk
superintendent
Albert Lea Area Schools
Albert Lea
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 17, 2009 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe it is time to look at economies of scale. There are 60,000 plus teachers in Minnesota. Each district must negotiate with each small collective unit. Why not have one master contact for all teachers just like they have for the DOT and others? Then when doing funding the school would get a check for its exact labor cost. Plus the teachers would benefit because it would not matter where you teach because everyone gets the same pay. Thus taking out a huge line in the budget. Also all administration would be governed under 1 contact. No more big pay outs to administration who run their districts into the ground. Next there could be a standard day (7 periods that run 8:00 to 3:00?) and a set curriculum. This is taught in 9th grade 10th grade etc. The text books could then be bought in bulk by the state and distributed to the districts. Again saving cost for the district plus if someone moves to a new district they can just pick up where they left off. Maintenance should be done this way as well. Buildings should be looked at for age and wear. Repairs should be spread state wide and the cost bearded by all. This would reduce cost and make our schools more competitive. Just look at the largest parts of the school’s budget. Labor, curriculum supplies, and maintenances
Posted by conserned (anonymous) on November 17, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Is this the same NoDFL that continually rails against the Government run health plan especially the Public Option? It seems that it not ok for the government to insure the millions of uninsured with health insurance but it is ok for the state government to run the educational system and take it out of the local domain. Isn't it the mantra of the Party of NO to have smaller government not larger.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 17, 2009 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The state constitution requires us to provide and pay for education in Minnesota. Thus to follow what the law says and to save money we have to look at new ideas. Government already runs public education (poorly I might add). This is a state issue again no where in the (federal) Constitution does it give the federal government the right to have a department of education nor to run healthcare.
Also why is it when we start talking about saving money and giving more to the kids do we get this local domain stuff? This is what has caused the huge gap in spending as it is. Some areas are willing to have (or can support) higher property taxes. Are you against kids getting the same great education every where? Are you against cutting wasteful spending? How nice would it be to know that ever year what your labor cost would be. I am unsure (will check) but I think labor is over 1/2 of the schools budget. Just wonder when we start talking about taking on the teacher union we get a push back. This has nothing to do with right or left but what will save money and help the kids.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 17, 2009 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Would you believe the recipients of Ford's largesse are the teachers unions? Yup. The folks at Ford are giving new meaning to the word "retro."
Ballyhooing the $100 million, the foundation's president Luis Ubinas said, "Improving our schools, and giving the most vulnerable young people real educational opportunities, benefits all of us. With this initiative we want to shake up the conversations surrounding school reform and help spur some truly imaginative thinking and partnerships."
And yet the Ford press release contains not one mention of charter schools, vouchers, merit pay or even Teach for America. Literally speaking, this really does shake up, not to say shock, "the conversations surrounding school reform."
Ford's formula for reform involves more money, less accountability and a bigger role for the unions. "Many state finance systems fail to allocate enough resources to provide quality schooling for all students," Ford's daring analysts write. And, "standardized tests are a blunt and inadequate tool by which to gauge student learning and school effectiveness."
But one of the screaming ironies of public education, known to all, is that some of the worst school districts in the country spend the most money on students. Standardized tests may be a "blunt" instrument, but they are also the only way that parents have had of holding bad teachers and terrible students accountable. This is why the unions dislike student testing, as well as teacher pay based on student performance.
One of Ford's first grants will go to the new American Federation of Teachers Innovation Fund, a "union-led initiative to make grants to AFT affiliates nationwide for innovative efforts established jointly by teachers, administrators, and parents." Here's guessing the main such innovation will be more money for everyone regardless of results.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 17, 2009 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The fact that Ford is supporting the unions—the biggest barrier to school reform in America—is no surprise. The foundation has funded just about every major failed liberal establishment program since the Great Society. Head Start, Job Corps and the Community Development Corporation were launched from Ford templates. In the 1970s, the foundation supported forced sterilization programs to curb overpopulation in the third world. A few years ago it gave money to an Arab NGO that wanted to wipe Israel off the map. It also largely paid for the University of Michigan's defense of affirmative action at the Supreme Court.
Last Wednesday, by contrast, the Gates Foundation offered $10 million to help the wildly successful KIPP charter schools expand in Houston. One might have hoped that Ford's administrators would have looked at some of the real innovation being done by philanthropies such as Gates or the Walton Foundation and seen how truly far behind the times Ford's ideas are.
Oh, well, another $100 million for education down the drain.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...
Posted by newyankee (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 7:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So Superintendent Mike Funk, seems to says schools need more money. More specifically he would like to see the way money is divided up by the state addressed. But it is again the need for more money along with the claims of "cuts" and "disparity" and a few tired percentages that could easily be cut and pasted with every other story about education funding. Why is the public not provided with real numbers, again? Why is there no expectation that a budget explanation be posted along with this repeated claim that the schools need more money? A one page summary of the budget with plain english descriptions I think would be great.
Posted by time2share (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just curious, NODFL, how do the area schools stack up in the state as far as wages? If wages for each location is averaged out and every teacher gets paid the same, would you get a raise or a pay cut? I would venture a guess that you would probably get a raise otherwise you wouldn't be in favor of this type of payment system or would you be in favor of all Minnesota teachers taking a pay cut like the rest of us? What I am constantly hearing from you is that your service to the community is far more valuable than anyone elses. We are all asked to make sacrifices, why can't teaches do the same?
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would see a pay cut. I would stand behind a pay freeze if it did what it needed to do. I understand some have said don't cut my pay but with so many taking cuts it would be wrong to demand more. However if these cuts were made than all should see a reduction in their taxes. There is a real danger lumping everyone into one group.
Posted by time2share (anonymous) on November 18, 2009 at 11:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks NoDHL I like your answer. I apologize for assuming the worse. I agree, nobody likes to take a cut but during war times everybody has to sacrifice. That's just the way it is.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on November 19, 2009 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You are right we all need to do what is best. I wish the guys in office would do what you and I are willing to do. Take a pay cut. If we want to force teachers and city workers to do this than so should our Reps and the Gov and everyone in public office. The reduction should be across the board. A 2% cut hurts the little guy a whole lot more than the Rep. or Gov. but we have to start somewhere.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
The Tribune encourages healthy, respectful dialogue in the spirit of community enlightenment. It's OK to disagree, but be courteous and civil. Name-calling, vulgarity and claims of criminality are subject to removal.
(Requires free registration.)