I have enjoyed this discussion on educational funding. I have been
particularly pleased to see a wide variety of opinions and the
participation of Board members, parents, and educators.
As a renegade member of the ISD 191 Legislative Coalition (Burnsville
Eagan Savage) and a very close observer of K 12 finance, both on a state
wide and local basis, I would like to take this opportunity to interject
in this discussion something that is generally left out. Namely facts.
This first missive will focus on facts we can all probably agree on: The
inexcusable cross subsidy of Special Education with general education
monies.
Many years ago the Feds mandated that Special Education (defined in the
Bill and expanded over the years) was a shared responsibility of the
federal, state and local authorities. The Law stated that the Feds would
commit to 40% of the costs of paying for this mandate. The state and
local units of government would share the remaining 60% by a means of
their own choosing.
The Federal participation in this program was to be phased in over a set
period of time. However legislatures being what they are decided to
ignore their previous promises and today fund Special Ed to app. 11-13%
of the total cost. This is a long way from the 40% they originally
committed to.
The state has a very complex formula that determines their contribution
to Special Ed. Funding varies from District to District. I am unaware
what percentage the State funds the remaining 60% mandate. However it is
a fairly significant portion.
I am acutely aware of what remains to be paid by local districts. In
District 191 our cross subsidy in 1999 was $408 per WADM (weighted
average daily membership) which translated to $5,367,879 out of a total
budget of app. $85,000,000
The Mpls numbers for 1999 were: $504 per WADM or $27,641,288.
This is a whole lot of money folks. It is money taken directly away from
salaries, textbooks, supplies, the efforts to reduce class size,
implementation of grad standard and the Profile, etc. It is a huge drain
of resource that takes from the general student and gives to a small
subset of the student population.
Special Education is very difficult to budget for. It costs what it
costs. It doesn't take but a handful of special needs students to
unexpectedly to walk through the door to screw up the best laid plans of
even the best of bean counters. Additionally, do not accept the
definition of a Special Ed student as a "pupil unit." In this category
one child could cost the equivalent of a regular classroom.
We are hearing a lot from the Governor, Christine Jax (CFL), Legislators
and local school officials about fully funding Special Ed costs. One
must be careful to nail down just what exactly "full funding" means.
Is it 100% of all costs to the local districts? Is it 100% of all costs?
Is it 100% of the 60%?
Well, according to Commissioner Jax in testimony last week to the House
K-12 Finance Committee, full funding is defined by the Governor as being
persuading the Feds to fund their 40% commitment.
I will end by telling this list that in meetings between the District
191 Legislative Coalition and our area Legislators (Rep Wolf, Gerlach,
Buesgens, McElroy, Wilkens and Senators Belanger, Knutson) it is
apparent that this budget problem is the one that gets the most sympathy
across the board. They know it is a problem. I think that there is a
good opportunity for a lot of movement on this issue in this legislative
session.
Duke Powell
Burnsville
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
