Home > News & Events > For Immediate Release	Print View

K-12 funding spared in Governor's recommendations
The Governor has released his budget recommendations earlier this week to eliminate the $1.2 billion deficit in the current funding cycle.  As he previous had indicated, he did not cut funding to K-12 education.  He did propose deep cuts to local governments along with health and human services programs. In addition, he reduced funding to higher education and cut funding for state agencies by 6%. 

The governor is also counting on using $387 million in federal funding intended for extended Medicaid payments.  This funding is part of the larger job's bill proposed by President Obama and has not been passed yet in Washington DC.  If these dollars do not come by the end of the session, the State will have to find an additional $387 million to cut. 

We commend the governor for prioritizing the importance of K-12 education for our children and the State.  Now it is up to the legislature to accept his budget recommendations or counter with their own.  There will be pressure from constituents to soften the blow of the governor's budget reductions by having K-12 education absorb further cuts.  It is important to remember that K-12 education has already has been part of the solution. 

The governor shifted nearly $1.8 billion through delayed payments to our schools by using his unalottment authority in June.  Also, the State is borrowing nearly $500 million of school district fund reserves to deal with its cash flow problems through March-June.  Schools have not been left untouched through these difficult times.  

Education unallotment to become law?
To assure that the Governor's unallotment that delayed $1.8 billion of payments to our schools remains a shift and not become a permanent staggering cut, education advocates would like to see this unallotment put into law.  Two bills that would do so, HF2683 (Dittrich) and HF2508 (Garofalo), were heard in the House Education Finance Committee.  Representative Garofalo asked that either bill move independently through the legislature for quick action.  However, Chair Mindy Greiling decided to lay both bills on the table for possible inclusion in the omnibus bill, which is usually the last bill to come out of committee.  Apparently we will not see a quick resolution of this matter and $1.8 billion of education funding will remain in play during the final negotiations. 

Should the referendum cap be raised?
An interesting article in the Star Tribune today discusses the issue of raising the referendum cap.  A bill to do so is introduced every year and SEE opposes it.  The article lays out the argument well except they miss one key point.  The cost to the voting residential taxpayer for a "levy dollar" is based on the property wealth of the individual school district and varies greatly from district to district.  The cap in referendum revenue is already set at $1,500 per pupil, approximately six out of the 339 school districts are grandfathered in at even higher levels.  The problem is that many districts can't get close to the current cap because the cost is so high to the local taxpayer.  Referendum revenue has become an important part of education funding due to inadequate state funding.  But until all districts have equal access to the current cap through state-aid equalization, the Legislature needs to work towards solutions that benefit all children and not just a handful of students that live in districts with generous amounts of commercial and industrial property that softens the tax burden for the voting residential property owner.  Let's be clear, it's not that residents in low-property wealth districts don't support their schools, they do.  Ninety percent of school districts have referendum.  However in low-property wealth districts, the school district must be sensitive to the tax burden in the community and the administration ends up asking for referendum amounts that they think the taxpayer can bear, not what the school district truly needs.  Many residents in property-poor districts pay more per year yet generate less funding for their schools than the comparable resident in high-wealth districts.  Referendum funding provides educational opportunities for children that is not based on the needs of the students, but is based merely on where a child lives.  Access to this funding must be made more fair before the legislature removes the current cap and thus widens the disparity in educational opportunities between property-rich and property-poor schools districts.  See Brad's Blog for more information.  
 
What You Can Do