opinion

School Funding Shift, the ultimate "Wimpy Platter", I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today!

Using the authors logic we could avoid any financial crisis by just borrowing from education whenever a crisis came to be. Once the education formula went to 0% in the first year (they would still get all of their money next year), then we could start borrowing money from other programs. Hey, if we played are cards right, we could create a year when the state spent no money. Give Me A Break.

This entire piece is based on the premise that our budget woes could ONLY have been solved through budget cuts alone, a fatal flaw of logic: alas, for Grover Norquist's lackeys. Targeted tax reform aimed toward recooping revenue lost to loopholes, such as what Dayton has suggested could have worked too (perhaps not in its current form, however), but last year's crop of Legislators wouldn't hear of it. They were too busy "creating jobs" by protecting "job creators" with sociopolitical amendments--insert sarcasm here. The truth, dear author, is that the funding shift was the best deal Dayton could make at the time when dealing with intransigent ideologues. You're right though, it is pretty simple...

Interesting piece . . . I hadn't really understood that policy-makers were trying to avoid painful permanent cuts to education by choosing to delay aid payments. Maybe not the best public finance policy, but at least there is an explanation that seems to be supportive of educating our kids.

Wow - What a misleading portrayal of the situation. And from a school superintendent! Of course, school districts have had LESS money to spend on education. In real terms they have fewer dollars. Money that should have been available for children's education was redirected to cover the cost of borrowing, and this new cost is attributable to the accounting games played by the state.

Let me get this straight: Regardless of what is happening, when you go to the Minnesota Department of Education web site and look at state average standardized performance tests, the scores appear to me to be unacceptable. So, what are we supposed to do here, continue to pay more and get the same...or pay more and get less like a lot of districts are doing with four day weeks? I don't see many give-backs by teachers, and I see a lot of demands for more money and benefits to improve their ability to deliver better education. Sorry, I look at the numbers in further detail and don't see that more money is helping our kids. When average scores are in the 85-90th percentile across the state for reading, writing and math, I might be willing to consider paying more for even better performance. Until then, I don't believe too many teachers are earning their money. If they are, and things might be even worse without them, then what does that say about the basic potential of most of our kids. Sorry, I just can't believe the kids are that incapable, so the only answer is it must be someone else.

ebenezer - "Sorry, I just can't believe the kids are that incapable, so the only answer is it must be someone else." You're absolutely correct, they are capable. It's the parents. When I went to school, my parents usually took the word of the teacher far more seriously than mine, because that's how one respected authority. Parents these days often question the validity of teachers' choices or the grades their children earn. How can a teacher push their students without the support of the parents? Students don't like being pushed, and if their parents bail them out, they'll never learn how to push themselves when no one else is there to do it for them.

----Wow - What a misleading portrayal of the situation. And from a school superintendent! Of course, school districts have had LESS money to spend on education. In real terms they have fewer dollars. Money that should have been available for children's education was redirected to cover the cost of borrowing, and this new cost is attributable to the accounting games played by the state.--- In real terms from FY08 to FY13 in real terms funding dropped 1 percent including the added borrowing cost... It is abundantly clear that you don't have any concept of how finance works. School districts got the money, they just got it later than planned 1 time. the funding did not change, what changed was their cash flow.

This piece may offer some insight on funding shifts, but it cannot account for the huge discrepancy in funding between different districts. A community with a weak business money levies from its community it is significantly weaker than communities closer to the metro. Ask people in Rockford, St. Michael, Maple Lake, Princeton, and other districts if their children are worth $2,500 per pupil less than kids who grow up ten to fifteen miles away from them. There is no good reason for it. Change the equation so it is no longer in violation of the state constitution.

This article doesn't highlight that the state only gets a budget benefit if they increase the holdback year to year. So in any given year if the state is paying 60% of current yearr education funding due, and the 40% owed from last year, it's effectively no different then if the state was providing full funding. So it was an increase, from 30 or 35% holdback to 40% that gave the state some relief. As for the schools, they are required to borrow to manage this "just a cash flow" issue. a few months late", schools stop recieCharter schools in particular are hard hit by this funding model because they do not have access to the very very low interest rate loans or local tax revenue a public school district may have. While it's true that schools would prefer the state provide 60% funding and an IOU for the rest to cutting education funding dramatically, this article soft-pedals the dysfunction in this budgeting process and the examples where it hurts educational programs.