1. How can a bill enhance student achievement in Minnesota?

2. Minnesota Minnesota Department of Education  829,184 kids in public K-12 schools 50.5% K-6 49.4% 7-12 13% receiving special education services 7% English language learners 31% qualify for free and reduced lunches  1881 schools  52,796 teachers  341 school districts

3. And school funding  Per Pupil Formula (Set by the Legislature) x AMCPU (Adj. Marginal Cost Pupil Units) = $$ District Operating Funds  Pupil units: Kindergartners =.612 // Grades 1-3 = 1.115 // Grades 4-6 = 1.06 // Grades 7-12 = 1.3

4. But Our Population is Changing T om Gillaspy, MN state demographer

5. Our E-16 population is more diverse T om Gillaspy, MN state demographer

6. Change In Minnesota School Enrollments 1999-00 to 2004-05 By Language Spoken At Home Tom Gillaspy, MN state demographer

7. Kids Count findings Children ’ s Defense Fund  Most recent data shows : The number children living in poverty in Minnesota has climbed to the highest level of the decade 12% of children under 18 live in poverty that ’ s 152,000 kids 50% of these children are under age 5 20% of Asian children, 26% of Hispanic/Latino children and 45% of African American children live in poverty Only three states had higher poverty rates among Black children than Minnesota--Mississippi, Louisiana and Oklahoma

8. % of MN children rated “ not yet ” performing adequately at Kindergarten entrance Brookings Institute Language and literacy Mathematical thinking

9. Special Education Requirements  The “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act” (IDEA) 1975 brought over 1 million children who were previously kept at home or in institutions into the public school system.

10. And mandates have increased No Child Left Behind Proficiency Testing Grad Standards Special Education mandates Transportation English Language Learning Health and Safety mandates Physical Education HIV/AIDS Sex Education Drug/Alcohol Abuse Education Bus Safety Title 1 Programs

11. But the funding?

12. History of the Basic Formula

13. So how does HF 4178 address these needs An adequate formula, linked to inflation, using targeted dollars for special student and district needs, reduces or eliminates a district’s need to use general education dollars to buy special services AND allows for local levies to be used for local initiatives. Provides early learning, rigor, an extra boost and infrastructure!

14. HOW?  Sets the basic per pupil formula high enough to cover students basic instructional needs while other component formulas can be used for specific additional needs Increases the per pupil formula allowance from $5175 to $7500. All students count as 1.0 Currently we weight Pupil units: Kindergartners =.612 Grades 1-3 = 1.115 Grades 4-6 = 1.06 Grades 7-12 = 1.3  Ties the per pupil formula to inflation using the Implicit Price Deflator

15. Provides for early learning Dependable funding for:  All Day K or early childhood  Early intervention programs

16. Provides for academic rigor  Academically rigorous coursework  Lower class size  Directed funds for innovation, career and technical education and gifted and talented programs so districts can provide a level of funding for students in each of these areas

17. Provides that “extra boost”  Links ELL to the formula, lifts the cap and increases the reimbursement (20% of the formula allowance)  An additional $2500 (33% of the formula) for children who qualify for Free and reduced lunch  Funding for students to spend more time in school—ie summer school  Fully funds the state’s formula for special education costs

18. Provides infrastructure S o that buildings and buses support learning, not compete with it HF 4178 provides transportation dollars and dollars to maintain school district buildings.  Creates hazardous pupil transportation aid and 5% of district total transportation budget for bus purchase  All school boards may levy for cost of deferred maintenance

19.  Has a mechanism to help districts deal with declining enrollment  Provides funding for regional cost differences  Sparsity funding for our more rural areas remains essentially the same as it is today but decreases minimum sparsity distance from 19 to 15 miles.

20. For our kids to succeed—all four legs of the table are critical! Early learning, rigor, that extra boost and infrastructure!

21. Missing from the bill  A provision for the state to carry the high cost on low incidence special education students  Specific provision for technology  Discussion of use of local referenda

22. But can we afford to pay for it?

23. A Smart Investment A Constitutional mandate Section 1.”UNIFORM SYSTEM OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS. The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools. The legislature shall make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state.”

24. Minnesota Future Labor Force Tom Gillaspy

25. By 2020 65+ is Larger than K-12 By 2030 65+ Doubles Tom Gillaspy

26. The 15,000 students that did not graduate from Minnesota high schools in 2008 cost Minnesota Alliance for Education Excellence  nearly $4 billion in lost lifetime earnings  $224 million in lifetime health care costs  The loss of $829 million more in accumulated wealth than if all heads of households had graduated  a combination of savings and revenue of more than $77 million in reduced crime spending and increased earnings if the male high school graduation rate increase by just 5%

27. But we are already the state with the highest taxes!

28. Minnesota’s Tax Rankings Minnesota Budget Project Minnesota ‘s Total State and Local Taxes Ranking, as a Percentage of Income 19808 th 19907 th 19955 th 20008 th 200519 th 200619 th

29. And our Price of Government? Data: Minnesota Department of Finance The Price of Government is the State of Minnesota’s official measure and is factored as total state and local revenue as a percentage of personal income.

30. And school funding? Minnesota’s ranking in the nation for total public education spending as a percent of personal income. 1987 14 th 1992 25th 1997 21 st 2002 39th 2003 41st 2004 40th 2005 42nd 2006 41st

31. “State Education and Minnesota Demographic Change” Tom Gillaspy

32. Can we afford NOT to pay for it?

33. Minnesota Future Labor Force Tom Gillaspy