When Gov. Tim Pawlenty released his 2009-2010 budget, he surprised everyone with recommendations to increase funding for K-12 schools. It's not often I find myself agreeing with the governor, but in this case, we were in sync. Education must be a top — if not the top — priority in any budget framework, and more so now than ever. Minnesota's best chance for a sustained economic recovery lies with our ability to create a highly skilled workforce.

But while I agree with the governor on the priority, I disagree with his ideas about how to produce schools that meet the needs of a 21st century marketplace. Further, those of us charged with making decisions about where to invest taxpayer dollars are obligated to take an unbiased look at every program to determine if it meets the threshold of providing maximum value while yielding maximum results. By that criterion, the governor's plan falls short. 

The governor would use the state's credit card to delay payments to school districts. He attaches strings to funding that could ultimately worsen achievement and opportunity disparities among Minnesota school districts.  The governor's plan would increase funding by up to 2 percent per pupil only for students who meet performance targets. While it's important to recognize success, we also know that some students face greater challenges and barriers to success than others. His plan is somewhat like a teacher standing at the front of the class telling students who got an "A" on last week's spelling text that they get 10 extra minutes of study time before taking this week's test, while forcing students who failed the previous week to begin the test immediately. That just doesn't make sense. Instead of widening the gap between successful and less successful students, we should be taking steps to ensure every student has the opportunity to succeed.

No link between QComp and student success
Another problematic element of the governor's proposal is that he mandates every district in the state to enroll in QComp. He makes this recommendation despite a report by the legislative auditor that showed no evidence of a link between QComp and improved student performance.  A duplicative report commissioned by the Department of Education showed essentially the same thing: There is as yet no statistical link between QComp and greater student achievement. 

We already know that rural schools are less likely to benefit from QComp and face more difficulty enrolling, giving metro and suburban districts a distinct funding advantage.  Additionally, because the law is partially funded through school-board approved levies, the program actually increases property taxes for homeowners and businesses — to the tune of $13 million in 2008-2009 alone.  

The bottom line is that there is no evidence yet to support funding expansion of QComp, and especially ahead of other proven needs, such as adequate, equitable formula funding, special education, all-day kindergarten or support for English-language learners and students struggling to learn in the face of devastating poverty.

While no reasonable person would argue against the urgent need to improve the way we fund our schools, the governor's plan clearly has flaws. 

Additional support for struggling students
Now contrast his proposals with the New Minnesota Miracle, legislation that provides funding for good performance, but also enables struggling students to get needed additional support after their school district puts together an improvement plan. The Miracle bill brings our current school funding system into the 21st century with simplified state public-school funding that relies less on property taxes.

Designed in such a way that it can be phased in over time, it contains rigorous accountability measures to monitor how students and schools meet performance targets, and requires districts to use a prescribed amount of basic revenue for proven programs to improve academic performance. Simply put, it would increase achievement for more students, give us a better way to measure student and school performance, and lessen the opportunity gap that currently exists among school districts.

Even in times of economic distress, children have only one chance to come to learn in school. Many economists — including our own state economist — tell us Minnesota's future prosperity depends on the investments we make now in future workers. Investing in high-quality schools has, and will continue to produce, the skilled workforce that has served our state so well. That, in turn, keeps employers in Minnesota, and better assures our long-term competitiveness; poor educational performance will drive employers away and relegate us to second-rate standing.

The stakes are high and the potential for success or failure equally great. Minnesotans are counting on us to do more than just balance the books; they're also counting on us to build a framework for economic recovery and sustainable prosperity. That means employing strategies that have the best chance to produce the results we need, not taking a chance on things that may.  Right now, the New Minnesota Miracle gives us a far better chance for success.

State Rep. Mindy Greiling, DFL-Roseville, chairs the House K-12 Education Finance Division.