[speedgibson] Speed Gibson: Funding Formulas 2008

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by Speed Gibson:
Funding Formulas 2008
http://speedgibson.powerblogs.com/posts/1200206842.shtml


   As I illustrated with five posts last month, Minnesota's K-12 funding
   formulas are a mess, to the point where even the Legislature's own
   financial staffers can follow the math.
   The [1]P. S. Minnesota organization wants to reform such funding.
   Openly, they admit they want another $2 billion added to the State
   budget for our public schools. And, they want funding to be "reliable"
   which seems to be a code word for "automatic" and "unquestioned". Here
   are their nine guidelines for a new set of formulas:
    1. It should be targeted toward student achievement of local, state,
       and national standards.
    2. It should account for differences in district property wealth
       through a system of equalization. Said system should be based on
       an accurate economic representation of the use of a given property
       coupled with a sensitivity toward the income produced by that
       property or, in the case of a residence, the income of that
       property owner.
    3. It should account for differences in individual students such as
       family wealth, family language, and special needs.
    4. It should account for the unique characteristics of individual
       districts such as cost variances due to factors like geographic
       remoteness, declining enrollment, and market-based labor cost
       differentials.
    5. It should provide for limited local discretion by both the local
       school board and by district voters to account for marketplace
       competition and community expectations.
    6. It should target resources into capital-intensive obligations such
       as textbooks and non-technology instructional resources, student
       and system technologies, annual and deferred maintenance expenses,
       and transportation system operations.
    7. It should offer equalized access to the acquisition of new and/or
       remodeled school facilities while also providing incentives for
       collaboration and sharing of resources when possible.
    8. Both base costs and adjustments should be adequate and established
       in accordance with research-based methodologies which calculate
       the real costs associated with meeting state and federal
       standards. Such a system should significantly reduce the need for
       school districts to rely on operating referenda to support to
       support basic instructional costs.
    9. A new general education levy, equalized with state and local
       resources, should be used to adequately fund the base costs in the
       new formula.

   Tenets 1 through 7 are essentially met today by the current system.
   Points 8 and 9 is where the money is, that we simply tally what is
   spent and invoice the state for those "real costs" not covered by
   property taxes or the infamous mandates. There isn't a word about
   innovation or efficiency, and no real commitment to success. We will
   only target resources toward that end.
   I agree with some of this, starting with the role of property taxes in
   funding public education. (The voucher debate is out of scope for
   now.) I could see property taxes for school facilities, specifically
   the land and buildings, and related costs like custodians. I could see
   parents directly responsible for transportation and meals, and some
   activity participation fees. I would welcome the end of all federal
   education funding but regardless, the rest should yes, be funded by
   the State.
   The larger point I'd make is that we probably had some goals like this
   once upon a time and we still wound up with the convoluted system we
   have now. The P. S. Minnesota folks (largely insiders) are dreaming if
   they think guidelines or research will keep the Legislature from
   tinkering with formulas for political ends each and every session.

References

   1. http://www.psminnesota.org/