Downey Answers Constituent Questions About School Funding

This Election Day, are being asked to approve a pair of property tax levies for school funding—one a renewal of an existing operating levy and the other to increase technology funding.

State Rep. Keith Downey (R-Edina) has opted to not "take a formal position on issues of votes at the City of Edina or Edina School District."

That doesn't stop him from talking about the subject of school funding. Downey recently sent out the following answers to questions he often receives related to the state's role in education funding as well as specifics related to Edina Public Schools.

"It's a bit of information," Downey wrote,"but hopefully worth 5-10 minutes if you are interested."

1.  I thought the State funded our schools. Why are there local property tax levies?

The state of Minnesota funds the vast majority of school budgets. But school boards can also levy certain local property taxes via referendum, which is an entirely appropriate option for local communities to raise additional school funds.

Edina voters have always approved these local levies. As a result, state funding amounts to 70 percent of the Edina Schools’ budget, with 27 percent coming from local property taxes and 3 percent from the federal government.

2.  How much and why is Edina Schools requesting to spend more on technology? How much will be spent on the classroom and kids vs. administrative?

The district has developed a robust plan for technology, which can be found here.

3.  Some say state funding for schools has been cut. Others say it went up dramatically last year. Which is it?

The MN Department of Education reports that state per-pupil funding to Edina schools increased 23 percent over the past 10 years, including an increase of 6 percent over the past five years. This is total state funding including general and category-specific aids.

Remember that “cuts” in government budgets generally mean a smaller increase than projected, though still an increase. An individual year may be an exception, but over time state funding in actual dollars has increased, not gone down.

However, it is equally important to realize that districts face significant state-related challenges:

1. State funding growth has been uneven, and while state per-pupil funding to Edina roughly kept pace with inflation over the past five years, it did not keep pace with inflation for the five year period before that.
2. State payment delays have led districts to use short term borrowing, costing Edina $240,000 over three years or $10/pupil per year. 
3. State and federal mandates must be met, notably the special education mandate which has never been fully covered by federal or state special education funding. 
4. State funding comes in silos and favors urban and rural districts, and in certain silos Edina does not fit the state’s program well and can not take full funding. 
5. With state budget timing and collective bargaining rules, it is difficult for districts to align wage and benefit increases with their revenue growth. For example, the 11.3 percent cost growth over four years for the latest Edina teacher contracts. While the number of Edina’s licensed teachers grew from 490 to 570 over the past eight years, in the face of rising enrollment the number of teachers will now remain flat for the next two years as state funding grows slower than per-teacher compensation.   

4.  What is your opinion on the increased technology levy request?

My primary interest is to make sure Edina voters have good information regarding state funding and state policy impacts to make their decision. Our district has a proven track record of excellent results. It has a detailed technology plan, including support for its personalized learning strategy. We don’t need partisan rhetoric to sell or defeat a local levy. Sound bites and one-sided information only serve to raise questions, not answer them.

An increase in the technology levy would provide the district a stable source of revenue for a priority area like technology. And local levies allow local control, which is important.

Seeing the broader picture is important, too. The technology levy allows more general fund spending on things other than technology, which should be part of the discussion. And pressures on school programs and class size are driven by many factors beyond funding—including wage and benefit growth rates, state and federal mandates, achievement gaps, capital and facilities projects, curriculum and calendar decisions, administrative vs. classroom spending and year-to-year enrollment variations.

We have a lot of challenges to address at the state level to help our independent school districts and fulfill our education mission. It will be important to pass legislation that adequately and fairly funds education, empowers teachers and parents, enables site-based governance, promotes innovation, increases accountability for results, eliminates mandates in favor of local control, levels the playing field for districts in collective bargaining and reduces state funding silos and their constraints.