At a recent post-election press conference, Gov. Tim Walz was asked what he meant by “fully funding” education. His answer surprised me.
He said it meant making up the deficit that state government is supposed to be paying for special education. While it’s true that the state has neglected their duties in funding state-mandated special education costs, the governor misses the point on what most educators and the public would call “fully funding” education.
Over the past decades, our state government has spent less and less on education, leaving schools to scramble for funding in the form of property taxes. Because of this pattern, inequity in public schools has skyrocketed, and overall funding has plummeted in nearly every district.
According to North Star Policy Action (an independent research institute), even after accounting for inflation, per-pupil state funding for K-12 schools has decreased a full 20% from 2003 to 2022, and is on track to drop another 5% in the next two years. Add to this the drastic cuts in funding from the 1980s and ‘90s. This is the reason my wife, an English teacher in urban Minnesota, now sees 245 students throughout the day in her classroom, up from 175 students 10 years ago. It’s why my brother, who teaches music in suburban Minnesota, now has one music educator colleague instead of three, and works 80 hours a week. It’s why the first graders in my sister’s school in rural Minnesota have weaker reading skills. It’s why all of our young people are not getting the high-quality education they deserve.
While this decline in state aid is projected to drop even more over the next two years, this ongoing crisis can be avoided if state policy makers, together with the governor, take action during the next legislative session to restore past aid reductions, and then devise a plan to make these changes permanent. Our schools should not have to wonder each and every year whether they will be able to afford to pay for core education classes, special education, the arts, support staff and everything else that is needed.
The governor was absolutely right that, at the bare minimum, the government needs to fund special education. But “fully funded” education means the state government actually paying for the bulk of the cost of education in our state, rather than relying on property taxes to try (and fail) to make up massive funding gaps.
With our newly elected state government, now is the time for Minnesota to fund high-quality schools across the board. It’s time for our government to step up for a brighter future for all Minnesotans, and to fully fund education.
Amy Engebretson is a resident of St. Paul. Her daughter attends Highland Park Senior High.
More money, more money, more money!! Minnesota spend 13billion+ on public school education. How about you get better results and we will give you a bonus? Minnesota is 15-20 in spending per student, how about some results? Only one thing will fix this addiction to tax dollars by the monopoly that is public schools, vouchers that follow the student. Competition in education would do wonders, interestingly the teachers union fights this with all of its might (which happens to be our tax dollars) .
Yeah, more money. It’s about ROI – Return On Investment. Education dollars come back to us because better educated kids are more productive adults. More productive adults mean a more productive society – better wages, more profits.
But here’s the rub; it’s not immediate. Kids starting school now won’t be entering the workforce for maybe 20 years. I don’t know about you, but I’m going to be retired by then, living off the nest egg I’m building now. But I’ll still want a solid economy, because the nest egg can continue to grow. So whaddya say, let’s do our future selves a solid & build a productive workforce now – it’ll pay off in the long run.
Once again, the same broken record from Mr. Smith, who would apparently like us to go back to the 19th century – or perhaps the 17th – when well-to-do parents could (and did) hire private tutors to fill in the educational gaps left by home schooling their children. My vague memories of Minnesota, during my first half-century in another state, included the “Minnesota Miracle,” when schools apparently WERE “fully funded” in the generally-accepted meaning of the term, districts did not have to rely on property taxes to fund basic services, and children in less-affluent districts came a lot closer to getting, if not the same, at least similar resources to those available to kids in more-affluent areas.
Even as a relative newbie to Minnesota (2009), it seems obvious that wealthier districts have far greater resources available per student than less-affluent ones. Correlation is not causation, so there’s a limit to how far I’d want to stretch this, but there IS a correlation between available resources and educational outcomes – an assertion that a barn-sized pile of research done over the past generation will support. The single most accurate indicator of academic performance remains the socioeconomic position of a child’s family, and one of the primary rationales for society-wide support for education is to make up for the lack of resources available to families that are “challenged” by poverty, language barriers, race and other factors that remain persistent obstacles to something that might genuinely indicate a degree of equity and/or equality.
Ms. Engebretson’s column focuses on K-12 schools, but an even greater need is pre-K, where we as citizens get the most “bang for the taxpayer buck.” Universal pre-K ought to be a state priority, and holding pre-K staff to reasonably high standards beyond “Can you walk and chew gum at the same time?” deserves to be part of the discussion. A Ph.D. shouldn’t be necessary to teach 3-year-olds, but more than simply walking in off the street ought to be required as well. Basic literacy is literally essential to any sort of academic performance, and it doesn’t start in first grade – it starts at home, when the child is a toddler and pre-schooler, learning numbers, colors, and some basic sounds that go with written and spoken English. If the family’s native language is something other than English, that’s fine, and the child can (and will) learn that, too, but we live in an English-speaking society, and people without a command of English will (and do) have a much harder time succeeding at whatever role they want to play in society.
At the other end of the educational spectrum, observers – including Mr. Smith – should have noted over the past decade the skyrocketing cost of attending both the U and the Minnesota State system of colleges and universities. That, too, stems from failing fiscal support from the legislature. I’ve been saving money every month from my retiree’s pension for the education of my grandchildren, and when they turn 18, they might have enough in the bank to finance their freshman year, at best. The corporate model adopted by higher education across the country, including Minnesota, treads financial water at best, and will eventually sink beneath the waves of administrative and ancillary costs that have little to do with what goes on in a classroom. Moreover, eliminating the necessity for accumulating student debt should be a sizable part of any higher education discussion.
Ray, Mpls school district spends more money per student than any other district….. Look at the results. Claiming only “well to do” parents care about their child’s education is not only offensive it is not true.
Again, you see the fear of some folks to change a provenly broken system so parents (of all economic ranges) have more control of their OWN children’s education and future.
Please read my response, Joe. I never claimed that only well-to-do parents care about their children’s education, and if I had done so, you’d be quite correct – it would be both offensive and untrue. What I DO claim is that vouchers will allow us to slip back into that late 18th-century society you apparently have such affection for, where only the well-to-do will be able to afford to fill the gaps in their childrens’ education and life experience. Vouchers will simply supplement the resources the well-to-do already have, and allow their children to attend the schools with the best (i.e., most resource-intensive) programs, while giving the less well-to-do the “choice” of attending schools less well-endowed. In a society that’s already segregated by race and income, vouchers provide the illusion of equitable opportunity without providing any of the substance necessary to bring truth to the appearance. That’s why public schools, publicly funded, with resources equitably distributed, are not only a bulwark of a democratic society, but a proven and reasonably just way (if the legislature does its part, which it hasn’t been doing for years now) for an equitable distribution of the resources available in the community.
I’ve never worked for Minneapolis schools – or any other schools in Minnesota, for that matter – but if they spend more than other districts, it seems likely, based on what I’ve read since moving here, that they have greater challenges to deal with than other districts, both in kind and in number. My classroom observations have tended to support that view, and your response sidesteps the critical issue of pre-K resources and education. It’s in that area, especially, where the affluent have advantages not conferred upon the rest of the population, and those advantages provide their children with tools, experiences and attitudes that make their academic success much more likely in later years. No child enters a classroom a literal blank slate – some have had experiences and been taught skills that others will only be exposed to later, or not at all.
I love the same old, no knew idea, trickle down establishment types.
Years and years of failure but the same tired message.
Remember, you have to “pay off” the education establishments big DFL election donations. Give education more money so they will give the DFL more money. The cycle continues.
So are you saying Republican’s don’t believe in education, aren’t teachers, don’t serve on school boards, etc., etc. etc.
I am a HUGE believer in education. However, according to the science, trickle down, government union-based education is failing.
Why are you against funding kids? You are so establishment.
You did not answer the question? Are there not “R” folks involved in education?
And please show the “science” on ” trickle down, government union-based education is failing”
“so establishment” yeah I guess that’s called believing in public education, which is so Jeffersonian!
Go reread Oliver Twist, then explain why bringing back the conditions that created THAT society will be more beneficial, to more people, than that which we employ today. We get it, cruelty is your point, but you have to at least ATTEMPT to make a sales pitch as to why forever imprisoning the poor in grinding poverty is supposed to benefit anyone.
Ray I read your comments and am still perplexed why lower income folks with a voucher cannot find the right school for their child. Please explain. Also if more money is needed for better results, why does Mpls school district have such poor results with the most money per student in the state? Again, please explain.
Because I highly doubt the “voucher” will be for the 15-20k+ per child those schools require. Nor will they make social and educational disabilities magically disappear, nor cause the discriminatory private education industry change it’s practices in their regard. Again, we get it, your goal is to exclude the poor, the disabled, and minorities from meaningful educational opportunities, while further enhancing the advantage of the fortunate (with a side helping of shoring up the neverending decline in religious belief that you haven’t any answer for beyond childhood indoctrination). What you don’t seem to comprehend is that everyone understands this already, and simply restating your opinion, without any sort of persuasive argument for it, doesn’t really do much.
Joe, If the voucher program is successful for all students, then explain how all schools accepting vouchers will also support special needs students and their IDEA rights.
Also, in regards to MPLS schools, what is the actual spending breakdown for GenEd students vs SpEd students? Can you also provide evidence as support?
Let us invest in kids. The trickle -down government education model has enriched the politicians and the education establishment but continues to fail our kids.
Joe may be saying the same thing again but he is far from wrong. Our state spends 40% of its budget on education. The dollars that Ms. Engebretson states is inflationary, not real dollars. Our state collects more and more revenues every year and spends more and more every year. The increases far outpace inflation.
We have proven time and again that throwing money at things, education is a huge example, that government does never euquates to better results. Just look at the test scores. Things were bad enough before covid happened, then all the kids were sent home out of fear.
Anyone can always say we need more money. And everyone knows we need better public schooling. Any astute leader would know that there needs to be results if you want more money. However, education has been one of those that has been the status quo for far too long.
Heck, my family home schools. We get nothing yet our kids score at the highest levels of the standardized tests every year. How about funding us? Oh, but we can’t. It’s not the ‘right’ way according to the ever beholden DFL to the MEA.
If you want even more money for education, start by making the hard choices through government. Simply saying give more money does not work and is frankly insulting to the taxpayer. But we have a government that thinks they need more and more money and when they get it, they believe it is theirs, not ours.
“they believe it is theirs, not ours” Just curious Bob, who are “they” and how are they different from the “ours” folks? Are “they” criminals, thieves, charlatans, swindlers? And if so why aren’t we pressing charges and putting them in jail?
Assuming that what you claim is true, there is an advantage when a “teacher’s” classroom has two students as opposed to 35. That’s a point of the piece. Of course, it won’t be very long before the (necessarily limited) educational attainments of a single unlicensed home school teacher are inadequate to instruct their children in the plethora of advanced subjects.
And the piece makes clear that the author has adjusted the spending for inflation, i.e. is speaking of real dollars. So you are wrong.
“Our state spends 40% of its budget on education.”
And? That is one of the primary roles of state government.
“The dollars that Ms. Engebretson states is inflationary, not real dollars.”
Incorrect
“Our state collects more and more revenues every year and spends more and more every year. The increases far outpace inflation.”
Are you talking overall government spending or funding for education? The former could be correct, but I don’t feel like looking at the numbers. The latter would be completely incorrect. Education funding has obviously not kept pace with inflation.
Never known what fully funded means, probably never will, children are our seed crop of the future, and it doesn’t take a farmer to figure that one out. But to provide a little perspective, especially on cost. Minnesota has ~ 9,760 folks incarcerated at a cost of ~ $41,366 per head, ~ $403,732,160 per year, year after year after year (+ inflation etc. of course). Now the question becomes, are they incarcerated because our education system failed, or some other reason? Kind of suggests increasing investment today will save us many $ later. One other more specific regional point, the greatest diversity, immigrants, non-native language speakers, etc. and challenges for the state lie in the inner cities, those challenges are far greater in magnitude and scope than in a fairly homogeneous out state area. It is pretty dis-ingenious to try make those comparisons as equivalent.
It’s a competitive world, and every person needs skills to compete and survive. We’re not keeping up with some countries, despite our enormous wealth as a nation. I’d like my grandchildren to get the social skills, emotional skills and critical thinking skills they will need to pursue their dreams and take their place in the workforce. I assume others feel the same. A Universal Pre-K option is in the Build Back Better bill, (I think) being implemented in 2023.
MN has 9 billion$ surplus to invest in our state its resources and its people.
We’re not even in the top ten in per capita Ed spending.
Some states already have free daycare and Pre-K (OK FL NM)
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/per-pupil-spending-by-state
[excerpt]
U.S. Public Education Spending
In the United States, K-12 schools spend about $612.7 billion annually. This is about $12,612 per pupil. Federal, state, and local governments spend about $720.9 billion annually or $14,840 per pupil. The federal government provides 7.7% of funding, state governments provide 46.7%, and local governments provide 45.6%. On average, the U.S. spends $15,908 per pupil on postsecondary education and $33,063 per pupil on graduate and postgraduate education. The United States allocates about 11.6% of public funding to education, below the international standard of 15%, and spends about 4.96% of its GDP on education, compared to the 5.59% average of other developed nations. The U.S. spends the fifth-highest amount per pupil compared to the 37 other OECD countries, behind Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, and Norway.
Ya gets what ya pay for…
This is simply a blatant payback to the teachers union for all their hard work getting those ballots in and counted. This is why democrats always have twice the money to spend on campaigns and it’s not going to change anytime soon. Enrollments drop by the thousands every year yet they always need more money for some reason.
“This is simply a blatant payback to the teachers union for all their hard work getting those ballots in and counted. This is why democrats always have twice the money to spend on campaigns” That statement seems pretty inaccurate according to this!
https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/
Mr. Wagner has linked some research, but the idea that teachers union funds are what’s winning elections for Dems is rather dubious.
But more importantly, the Repub party is not legally or constitutionally required to be virulent hostile to public education and teachers unions. That is a relatively recent development, brought on by the increasingly toxic “conservative” movement as a means to build resentment in the working class, so as to obtain more of THEIR votes.
Repubs could first try not attacking public employees at every turn, and then maybe even supporting them to a reasonable degree. It is a possible strategy, you know, if Repubs are really so bitter about labor union campaign contributions!
Or is this objection more about keeping the fires of resentment burning?
Since Joe and Bob are all for free market capitalism in a voucher approach to education, attain their goal and we will certainly see free market capitalism in the schools competing for these voucher dollars. I sat in on a recruiting parents night at one of these schools and the Headmaster told all of the prospective parents that theirs is not a place for learning or behavioral problems and if their child has those issues the Public Schools would be a better choice for their child.
Hmmm.
Why would he say that? Simple: Controlling costs of production in his educational factory. Accommodating learning and behavioral problems will greatly disrupt his assembly line and those disruptions will fall right to the bottom line. And whether a profit or non-profit entity, a budget exists and meeting that budget with some consistency is an essential component to survival of the institution. And I am betting a $15,000 voucher fits very well in his normal production process. Throw in a special needs student and things begin to go astray. Throw in 30% special needs students and the system blows up.
And THAT IS EXACTLY the hopes and desires for voucher proponents. Get the best and brightest (their kids, no doubt) into the private school of their choice and let the rest be the problem of the Public Schools. And that completes their self fulfilling prophecy and they can drone on endlessly about: “Look how great my school does and how poorly the Public School does on any number performance measures”. Give the Vikings the first overall draft pick every year and tell the Packers that they will always begin in Round 4 and then attribute Viking victories to coaching is the essential message of voucher supporters.
Or, I could be wrong and would welcome an explanation why…
The point of the piece is not a demand for “more money, more money, more money!!” Instead it is merely proposing equal money; state spending that is equal to what students enjoyed in the 1970s. A time before the “conservative” movement began its (now decades-long) crusade against public education and teachers unions…such attacks do have an effect on an institution!
The people maligning the decline in schools shold note that “per-pupil state funding for K-12 schools has decreased a full 20% from 2003 to 2022, and is on track to drop another 5% in the next two years”
So… cut funding, schools decline; but we can’t give schools money until they improve outcomes first. I don’t get it.
Well, logical analysis doesn’t enter into it …
The “Defund the Public Schools” folks were smart because they never used that as the slogan. Instead it was “school choice”.
Maybe we should do that with law enforcement – set up alternative “charter” law enforcement and let people choose whether they want to call 911 or 912 for an emergency. Competition will improve outcomes, right?
That Governor of ours and the House Democrats boasted that they increased education spending in each of the last two budgets! Misinformation again I suppose.
Public unions should not be allowed to contribute funds to elections.
A huge conflict in my opinion.
And what about those corporations and gazillionaires? Couple 3-4 execs opinions and $M’s outweigh couple 200,000 union folk opinions at a couple bucks a head?