MINNESOTA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "MINNESOTA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION"

Transcription

1 MINNESOTA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION 2017 DELEGATE ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION MSBA DELEGATE ASSEMBLY December 1-2, 2017 DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel, Minneapolis

2 2017 DELEGATE ASSEMBLY PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS December 2, 2017 SCHOOL FINANCE - STATE AID 1. Flexibility in Spending Compensatory Dollars for Extended Time 2. Special Education Cross-Subsidy Task Force 3. Timeline to Fully Fund Special Education 4. Eliminate the Obligation of School Districts to Cover Special Education Costs for Charter Schools 5. Fund Gifted Education 6. Index the Base Funding Formula to Inflation TAXATION LEVIES 7. Ballot Language for Bonding Requests 8. Levy Authority for Special Education Costs 9. Hold School Districts Harmless from Over Valuations of Utilities GOVERNANCE 10. Increase of School Board Filing Fee EDUCATION PROGRAMS 11. Align World s Best Workforce (WBWF) and Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) 12. Ensure Cyber-Security and Privacy of Student and District Data 13. Inspect and Copy Public Data for a Fee 14. Eliminate the Requirement to Test Newcomers/SLIFE Students 15. Petition for School District Consolidation 16. Features of an Accountability Assessment System 17. Increase Funding for Pathway II Early Learning Scholarships 18. Eliminate MCA Tests and Allow for NWEA SCHOOL TRUST LANDS 19. School Trust Lands Director Authority -a-

3 INFORMATION ON RESOLUTIONS The purpose of this information is to provide you with some resource material to assist you in your deliberations. On many of the subjects there are additional items that are called to your attention, and it should be recognized that this material is not comprehensive. This is especially true for a number of the resolutions submitted by local districts where little or no background information was submitted. It is hoped that these districts will provide additional background information in their support of these resolutions for your consideration. FORMAT - We have attempted to categorize the resolutions by subject. Please see the Index and Table of Contents, which lists the general subject areas, the resolutions and a broad description, and the page reference. The resolutions include a listing of the submission source. Also, each resolution contains a recommendation for the type of action suggested by your MSBA Board of Directors. The recommendation on each resolution will be either (1) Recommend Passage, (2) Without Recommendation, or (3) Recommend Opposition. You will also notice that along with one of the three recommendations listed above, in some cases the Board of Directors have added additional comments concerning the resolution or the recommendation. These comments are added to give additional direction to the Delegate Assembly as to the thinking of the Board in relation to various resolutions. In most cases, these comments will direct the Delegate Assembly member's attention to a related resolution or establishment of a priority for that given resolution in relation to other resolutions addressing the same subject. It is important that you, as a Delegate Assembly member, have a good understanding of MSBA's current legislative policies so that MSBA's final legislative package will have consistency for action by the 2018 legislature. See Legislative Policies of the Minnesota School Boards Association that contain the current legislative policies of the Association. Many of the resolutions may have impact in a number of policy areas; for example, school finance proposals may cause an impact on state dollars, local dollars and/or taxation policies. -b-

4 INFORMATION ON DISTRICTS SUBMITTING RESOLUTIONS REAFFIRMING CURRENT MSBA POLICY The following school board submitted resolutions reaffirm current MSBA legislative policy. This was done to bring attention to existing policy. Existing policy remains in force until changed by subsequent action of the Delegate Assembly or by direct legislative action. SCHOOL BOARD - DISTRICT 1. Faribault SUBJECT OF RESOLUTION Comprehensive School-Based Mental Health Training (#1.40, page 5) 2. Faribault Eliminate Civics Test (#4.197, page 23) 3. Stillwater Fully Fund Special Education Costs (#1.25, page 3; #1.30 & #1.31, page 4) -c-

5 2017 Delegate Assembly Proposed Legislative Resolutions SCHOOL FINANCE RESOLUTION #1 FLEXIBILITY IN SPENDING COMPENSATORY DOLLARS FOR EXTENDED TIME Name: MSBA Board of Directors This resolution is submitted with the support of the MSBA Board of Directors Recommendation: Passage RESOLUTION STATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, THAT MSBA URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO ALLOW SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO HAVE GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN SPENDING COMPENSATORY DOLLARS FOR EXTENDED TIME. CURRENT POLICY Page 5, Urges the legislature to increase extended time revenue from 1.2 to 1.5 and link this to the general education formula so that future increases to the formula are passed onto extended time learning opportunities. Page 6, Urges the legislature to establish a special legislative task force to study and make recommendations on the following compensatory education formula components: 1) The appropriateness of using free and reduced price lunches as the determining factor for revenue eligibility; 2) The educational effectiveness of distribution of revenue to sites instead of to the district; 3) The issue of accountability to the public for the decisions related to the expenditure of compensatory revenue when revenue is distributed by the state to the site instead of to the elected school board; 4) The narrow definition of what qualifies as a site based decision making team under the present statute; and 5) The impact on individual districts and school sites of the changes to compensatory revenue as enacted by the 1997 legislature. 1

6 CURRENT LAW Minn. Stat. 123A.06 STATE-APPROVED ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES. Minn. Stat. 124D.12 PURPOSE OF FLEXIBLE LEARNING YEAR PROGRAMS. Minn. Stat. 124D.128 LEARNING YEAR PROGRAM TO PROVIDE INSTRUCTION THROUGHOUT YEAR. Minn. Stat. 126C.10 GENERAL EDUCATION REVENUE. Minn. Stat. 126C.15 BASIC SKILLS REVENUE; COMPENSATORY EDUCATION REVENUE. BACKGROUND BY MSBA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Definitions Extended time is defined by the Minnesota Department of Education as time in any educational programming that occurs outside of the core school day program. While any school can provide extended time programs, only State Approved Alternative Programs (SAAP) generate revenue for them. Approval for opening a SAAP automatically includes approval for extended time programs. In Area Learning Centers (ALCs), it is included for students not in their core school day program, although there is a separate application if a district wants to provide these at the K-8 level. The ability to provide these additional programs is allowed under 123A.06, subdivision 2: A center may also provide programs and services for elementary and secondary pupils who are not attending the state-approved alternative program to assist them in being successful in school. Extended time revenue may be used for extended day or week programs, summer school, vacation break academies and other programming authorized under the learning year programs (alternative extended day or year programs). The department defines Alternative Learning Programs (ALP) as technically able to provide extended learning programs only for students in the core school day program. 124D.128, subdivision 1, in describing SAAPs specifically mentions programs on an extended year calendar, extended school day calendar, or both. Subdivision 2, Commissioner Designation, details who the SAAP must serve and states programs must be provided to students throughout the year. Flexible learning year program is defined by state statute as any district plan approved by the commissioner that utilizes buildings and facilities during the entire year or that provides forms of optional scheduling of pupils and personnel during the learning year in elementary and secondary schools or residential facilities for children with a disability. Compensatory revenue is defined in the Financing Education in Minnesota 2016 guide as additional funding for students eligible to receive free and reduced-price lunches. Districts, with board approval, may allocate up to 50 percent of the compensatory revenue on a district-wide basis; the other 50 percent must be allocated to the school site in which the pupil who generated the revenue receives instruction. The revenue must be used to meet the educational needs of pupils whose educational progress related to state or local content or performance standards is below the level that is appropriate for pupils at that age level. Each school s site decision-making team, or instruction and curriculum advisory committee if there is no site decision-making team, must make recommendations on how the revenue is to be spent. Districts that receive compensatory revenue must maintain separate accounts for the revenue and report on its expenditure. 2

7 RATIONALE In February of 2010, the Office of Legislative Auditor (OLA) studied alternative education programs and released a report. In summary, the report found that elementary and middle school students who attended extended-time programs called Targeted Services, generally increased their test scores and showed higher-than-expected growth on two standardized assessments when compared with other students and national norms. However, the report also found the Minnesota Department of Education had established policies that limit student access to targeted services. The 2017 legislature enacted a law requiring schools to set aside increases in compensatory revenue relative to FY17, and beyond, for extended time activities only. To give perspective, due to the increase in formula, the extended time revenue is increased by $11 million for FY17 and $22 million for FY18. While an increase in funding is a positive, the restrictions to only use the funds for extended time are restrictive. The new restructuring may not receive resistance from districts immediately because many districts are already using their compensatory revenue for extended time purposes. However, over time, as the compensatory money available for all other uses remains frozen, greater flexibility in spending extended time may be needed. MDE believes the legislation implies: All State Approved Alternative Programs (SAAP) must have a core school day program, either a school within a school or separate site, and must offer programming year-round. Alternative Learning Centers (ALC) must be established with at least one other district (except for Minneapolis, Saint Paul and Rochester) and must offer a comprehensive education program at both the middle and high school level. Alternative Learning Programs (ALP) can be established by an individual district, their program does not need to be comprehensive and they can designate which grades they will be serving. MDE reviewed enrollment dates, membership hours claimed, amount of ADM earned, amount of Extended ADM earned, and MDE believes the following: Two SAAPs are only running a summer program. Ten SAAPs are not running a summer program. Two SAAPs are only running an extended day program. Fourteen SAAPs are most likely not running a core school day program. This is difficult to determine. There are many ALCs that were not established in cooperation with other district and/or are not running comprehensive education program at both the middle and high school level. There is at least one district designated as an ALC that is operating multiple programs in other districts, not as cooperating districts, but as satellite sites, and are generating additional revenue to do so. The process MDE currently has in place for approval is: A district contacts MDE expressing an interest in opening an alternative program. Conversation occurs to determine which type of program description best fits what they are thinking of and an application is sent to them. A meeting is offered prior to submission, a site visit is required within the first year. Support and technical assistance are offered throughout the application process. Approval is for the core school day program and extended learning programs. This is included in the approval letter. 3

8 Independent Study is a separate application. Targeted Services is a separate application that only is available for ALCs. Applications are received, reviewed and scored and MDE responds within thirty days. Both ESSA and WBWF have raised the bar with expectations of our students. Those expectations must be met with higher levels of funding, and the flexibility to expand proven programs to aid in closing the achievement gap. PROS and CONS Pros: The 2017 legislature enacted a law requiring schools to set aside increases in compensatory revenue relative to FY17, and beyond, for extended time activities only. Extended time activities and services have demonstrated increased student test scores, thus closing the achievement gap. Allows for local control school districts extended time needs can vary greatly, and each knows where the greatest opportunity for impact is. Alleviates some of the financial and administrative burden from MDE and school districts. More students would benefit from extended time activities and services. Current restrictions on extended time funding may limit participation. Cons: All students don t receive the benefit of extra services. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION The current restrictions on extended time are limiting and school districts need more flexibility to spend extended time revenue to help close the achievement gap. 4

9 2017 Delegate Assembly Proposed Legislative Resolutions SCHOOL FINANCE RESOLUTION #2 SPECIAL EDUCATION CROSS-SUBSIDY TASK FORCE Name: MSBA Board of Directors This resolution is submitted with the support of the MSBA Board of Directors Recommendation: Passage RESOLUTION STATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, THAT MSBA URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO CREATE A TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE SPECIAL EDUCATION CROSS-SUBSIDY WITH TIMELINE AND FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS. CURRENT POLICY Page 3, Urges the legislature to stabilize education funding by reducing the special education crosssubsidy by 25 percent. (2016) Page 3, Urges the legislature to eliminate the cross-subsidy of special education programs by general education funds. The state shall assume the responsibility of supplying the additional revenue to fully fund the gap between the deficit in federal funding and the actual special education costs incurred by school districts. CURRENT LAW Minn. Stat. 125A.76 SPECIAL EDUCATION AID Minn. Stat. 125A.79 SPECIAL EDUCATION EXCESS COST AID Minn. Stat. 127A.065 CROSS-SUBSIDY REPORT BACKGROUND BY MSBA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Definition The special education cross-subsidy measures the difference between special education expenditures and associated revenues. The general education fund covers the shortage between the revenue the district receives in the special education expenditures each year. 1

10 MN Department of Education (MDE) Cross-Subsidy Report FY 2016 As required by state law, the commissioner of education is required to submit to the legislature a report on the amount each school district is cross-subsidizing special education costs with general education revenue. You can see where your school district falls in the cross-subsidy by looking at the full report in Appendix B. Key Findings According to the 2016 Special Education Cross-Subsidy Report - Figure 2: Cross-subsidy for school districts for FY 2016 is $679 million; a 5.6 percent increase from the previous year. By FY 2021, the cross-subsidy is expected to grow to $806 million. The cross-subsidy has doubled since Percent of Expenditures Covered by Funding Another way to look at the cross-subsidy is to show the percentage of special education expenditures covered by state and federal funding formulas. Key Findings According to the 2016 Special Education Cross-Subsidy Report - Figure 3: Clearly, the state and federal government have not met their funding obligations. According to MDE beginning in FY 2015, the state and federal funded portion of special education expenditures is expected to increase slightly to 69.9 percent by FY 2021, due to increases enacted in state special education funding in

11 Recently, the portion of special education expenditures funded with state aid has gradually increased, while the portion funded with federal aid has gradually decreased. School districts continue to be responsible for 29.1 percent of special education costs not covered under state and federal funding formulas Legislative Changes to Special Education Funding Formula As provided by Paul Ferrin from Minnesota Department of Education. The 2013 legislature made significant changes to the special education funding formula, however they did not go into effect until FY 16. Old Formula Under the old formula, only direct services (teachers, paras and contracted service providers), supplies and equipment were eligible for aid. This meant costs for benefits, special education directors and other administrative costs associated with special education were not part of the funding formula. Cooperatives and intermediates were also not able to generate special education aid. They reported their costs and we calculated their aid, but it was allocated to the student s resident districts. Tuition billing is the system used to reimburse any LEA (district, charter, coop or intermediate) for serving a non-resident student. Therefore, since the coops/intermediates did not get paid directly, they had to tuition bill significantly more to cover their costs. The other major difference with the old formula is there was a statewide adjustment factor. Under this formula salaries were reimbursed roughly at 68 percent, contracted services at 52 percent and supplies/equipment at 47 percent. However, when you applied these factors to all the reported costs the resulting aid was always more than the funds made available by the legislature. This resulted in adjusting everyone s aid equally by roughly 12 percent. New Formula Under the new formula, all costs necessary to run an LEAs special education program are eligible and included in the aid calculations. The main reason this was changed was due to the differences in what some LEAs pay for benefits compared to others. For districts that pay health insurance for paraprofessional and part-time staff they had a larger unfunded cost before which made things unfair. The other major change to the funding formula was that coops and intermediates would be paid aid directly 3

12 resulting in them having to tuition bill less. The legislature did put a provision into the new formula whereby saying that districts cannot get less under the new formula than they would have under the old formula. So, for FY 16 besides calculating everyone s aid under the new formula we also had to calculate everyone s aid under the formula to set just the school district s minimum aid for FY 16. Impact of New Formula The new funding formula was designed to generate more aid for everyone, so along with having a hold harmless for districts the legislature also created a growth limit/cap for them. In FY 16 to get the max we just add to the minimum $80 times every student the district serves (this includes GenEd and special education EC 12 th grade). So, in the end we have a minimum, a maximum and a new formula amount that we must compare for each district. In years after FY 16, we take that final minimum amount from FY 16 and adjust it by 4.6 percent and the districts ratio of their current year adjusted ADM divided by their FY 16 ADM (growing districts will get a larger increase than just the 4.6 percent while declining districts will get less). The maximum for any year is just the adjusted minimum plus the aid increase amount (it was $80/student in FY 16 and goes to $100/student in FY 17 and then it increases $40/student every year thereafter) times the total students served. Previous Special Education Task Forces Special Education Task Force 2008 The 10-member task force was created to submit a report that: "Identifies clearly and concisely explains each provision in state law or rule that exceeds or expands upon a minimum federal requirement contained in the law or regulation for providing special education programs and services to eligible students. The report must also recommend which state provisions that exceed or expand upon a minimum federal requirement may be amended to conform with minimum federal requirements." (From: Final reports: Special Education Task Force, 2008) Special Education Case Load Task Force - February 15, 2014 The 16-member Special Education Caseload Task Force was created to develop recommendations for the appropriate numbers of students with disabilities that may be assigned to a teacher, both with and without paraprofessional support in the classroom, and for cost-effective and efficient strategies and structures for improving student outcomes, and to identify state rules that should be revised to align with state statutes Legislative Audit Report In response to the increasing costs of special education, the legislature requested the Office of Legislative Auditor to evaluate special education. Two key findings build a case for a task force to bring this issue to the forefront again. School districts have had to divert revenues from general education aid and local operating levies to pay special education costs. Median sources of revenue for special education over fiscal years 2000 to 2011 were: 56 percent from state special education revenues, 33 percent from school districts general education and locally raised revenues, and 11 percent from federal revenues.) The number of students receiving special education increased 11 percent from fiscal year 2000 to 2011, while the overall number of K-12 students statewide decreased. Over that time, full-time-equivalent special education staff increased about 25 percent.) RATIONALE MSBA supports creating special education task force with a very focused mission: Develop a plan and a timeline to reduce the cross-subsidy and eventually eliminate it. The key facts that contribute to supporting a task force are outlined throughout this resolution. 4

13 The cross-subsidy in special education continues to be a major issue for our state to grapple with, due to the growing number of students receiving special education, more specialized services and rising costs associated with those services and inadequate funding. This funding shortfall will continue to grow, consume more and more general fund dollars and currently there are no solutions in sight. The facts surrounding the finances of a growing cross-subsidy are concerning for school district budgets across the state: Overall, the special education student population has risen from 13 percent to 15 percent of the state student body over the last decade. Nearly 125,000 children now qualify for services. Since 2003, the cross-subsidy has almost doubled, rising to $806 million in This shortfall, hit 30 school districts with a $1,000 per pupil or greater cross-subsidy. This shortfall, hit 60 school districts with a $800 per pupil or greater cross-subsidy. Two-thirds (240) of Minnesota School District s shifted more than $500 per student from the general fund to fund the cross-subsidy. Between rising need and insufficient state and federal aid, the amount of funding school districts will be forced to pay for special education costs will reach an average of $815 per student in FY17. In general, school districts alike will have no choice but to use on average 13 percent of the perpupil formula on special education unfunded costs. Special education services are mandated by law; however, neither the state or federal government has ever reimbursed schools for the actual expenses incurred. School districts continue to shift money from the state aid school districts receive for all students. If the state developed a plan for paying the full cost of actual special education costs school districts would have more money for technology, rigorous coursework and to hire tutors, literacy coaches and other staff support. School districts could do more long-term strategic planning with their revenue. The legislature made significant changes to the special education funding formula. However, they did not go into effect until FY 16. The department states these changes have slightly slowed the growth of the Minnesota cross-subsidy. One may conclude another task working on special education funding with a focus on the impacts of the new special education funding formulas, the projected cross-subsidy due to these changes and recommendations with a timeline to eliminate the cross-subsidy is needed. PROS and CONS Pros: The state special education funding system has not kept pace with the rising cost of mandated services and supports for students with special needs. On average school districts are subsidizing 13 percent of the basic education formula increase to pay for mandated special education services. Every school is impacted; some more and some less. The cross-subsidy gap is expected to continue to grow over the next five years. A new funding formula has taken effect in FY16 and may slightly slow the growth of the crosssubsidy. A work group should analyze and make recommendations in context of recent changes to the special education funding formula. A work group could propose recommendations and a timeline to eliminate the special education cross-subsidy. This may facilitate a plan for the legislature to implement. Without a solution or a plan to the formula increases continue to be consumed by the crosssubsidy. 5

14 Funding the special education gap, school districts will be able to honestly balance their budgets using the revenue provided from the legislature for the intended purposes. Cons: This issue has been studied previously with no legislative interest to reduce the special education cross-subsidy. A resolution like this one was tabled at the 2016 Delegate Assembly. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION This persistent cross-subsidy requires local school districts to make budget cuts, pass local operating referenda or both. While this problem is not new to the legislature; it may be time, due to the changes in the special education funding formula, to once again shine a spotlight on this perpetual shortfall in our school district budgets. 6

15 2017 Delegate Assembly Proposed Legislative Resolutions SCHOOL FINANCE RESOLUTION #3 TIMELINE TO FULLY FUND SPECIAL EDUCATION School district: Duluth Public Schools ISD 709 Phone: (218) This resolution is submitted with the support of the school board. Recommendation: Opposition in Lieu of Resolution #2 RESOLUTION STATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, THAT MSBA URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO IMPLEMENT A TIMELINE TO FULLY FUND SPECIAL EDUCATION COMMITMENTS MADE BY STATE STATUTE. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE BY SCHOOL DISTRICT Please refer to Resolution #2. CURRENT POLICY Please refer to Resolution #2. CURRENT LAW Please refer to Resolution #2. BACKGROUND BY MSBA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS RATIONALE A stand-alone policy addressing only a timeline to eliminate the special education cross-subsidy would not be effective in statute since the legislature could easily ignore the timeline. In resolution #2, we are suggesting a work group to develop recommendations and a timeline to eliminate the cross-subsidy. 1

16 2017 Delegate Assembly Proposed Legislative Resolutions SCHOOL FINANCE RESOLUTION #4 ELIMINATE THE OBLIGATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO COVER SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS School district: Duluth Public Schools ISD 709 Phone: (218) This resolution is submitted with the support of the school board. Recommendation: Opposition in Lieu of Present Policy RESOLUTION STATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, THAT MSBA URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO REMOVE THE OBLIGATION OF LOCAL DISTRICTS TO COVER SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING GAPS FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE BY SCHOOL DISTRICT The legislature continues to not fully meet funding commitments for special education made in state statute. Because of this, local districts are obligated to provide special education funding through a crosssubsidy from general fund dollars that would otherwise lower-class sizes and provide professional development. CURRENT POLICY Page 9, Urges the legislature to support legislation that would allow local school districts the same flexibility as charter schools and further provide state aid to school districts for the full cost of providing transportation and special education services to charter schools. CURRENT LAW Minn. Stat. 125A.11 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR NONRESIDENT CHILDREN Minn. Stat. 125A.12 ATTENDANCE IN ANOTHER DISTRICT BACKGROUND BY MSBA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Review current law and background on resolutions 2, 3, and 8. 1

17 Funding Basics on Charter Schools Program - Charter schools are independent public schools and are part of the state s system of public education. They must be nonsectarian and provide a comprehensive program of instruction for at least one grade or age group of students from 5 to 18 years old. Charter schools may be sponsored by a variety of different organizations, including school districts, higher education institutions, and certain nonprofits. Charter schools are exempt from many of the state laws governing other public schools, but must meet certain requirements, including state & local health & safety requirements, the pupil fair dismissal act, the state human rights act, gender equity in athletic programs, the public school fee law, and the same pupil and financial accounting and auditing standards as school districts. Participation - As of September 15, 2016, there were 168 charter schools operating in Minnesota serving an estimated 55,107 pupils. Financing - Charter schools are eligible for general education revenue, special education revenue, building lease revenue, start-up grants, and certain other school district revenue. General Education Revenue - A charter school earns general education revenue on a per pupil unit basis just as though it were a school district. The general education revenue paid to a charter school is paid entirely through state aid. Operating capital revenue received by the charter school may be used for any purpose. Referendum Revenue - A charter school receives the aid portion of each enrolling student s referendum revenue based on the student s resident district referendum amount. Special Education Revenue - A charter school receives special education revenue as though it were a school district. In addition, a charter school may bill back to a disabled student s resident school district eligible unreimbursed special education costs. For years prior to 2015, the charter school could bill back 100 percent of eligible unreimbursed costs. For fiscal year 2015 and later, the charter school may bill back no more than 90 percent of the eligible unreimbursed costs, unless at least 90 percent of the charter school s student population qualifies for special education services in which case the full 100 percent may be billed back to the resident district. Transportation Revenue - A charter school is eligible for an additional amount of general education revenue of approximately $283 per pupil unit if it elects to provide transportation services. In the alternative, a charter school may choose to have the school district in which it is located provide transportation services. In this case, the charter school does not receive any transportation funding, and the school district must provide transportation services to the charter school attendees in the same manner as it provides transportation to its resident students and students entering the school district under the enrollment options (open enrollment) program. A Unique Obligation for Minnesota Public Schools In a letter from July 2013, the Minnesota Department of Education made a clarification regarding charter schools and early childhood special education. The letter states: Minnesota is a birth-21 special education state, which means that child find duties (identification of students with possible disabilities) begin at birth. Minnesota has assigned that child find duties to districts via Minnesota Rules : School districts shall develop systems designed to identify pupils with disabilities beginning at birth, pupils with disabilities attending public and nonpublic school, and pupils with disabilities who are of school age and are not attending any school. The district's identification system shall 2

18 be developed according to the requirement of nondiscrimination and included in the district's total special education system plan. Child find for birth-to-kindergarten enrollment is of necessity undertaken by resident districts because districts are responsible for a contiguous geographic area and therefore are obliged to ensure that all students in their geographic area are located. It is impossible for charter schools to undertake the same duties, as they have no defined population or geographic area they must serve. In addition, child identification duties for birth-to-kindergarten enrollment students require significant coordination between a resident district and other agencies. The primary focus of a charter school must be to provide a comprehensive program of instruction. However, Minnesota s charter school law does not require charter schools to follow the portion of Minnesota s special education law that governs early intervention. Consequently, charter schools are not legally responsible to provide special education and related services to early childhood special education (ECSE) students. That responsibility has been assigned in law to an ECSE student s resident school district. Charter school responsibility for providing child find and special education and related services begins upon enrollment of the student as a pupil at the charter school. An ECSE student would not be considered enrolled in a charter school and generate general education revenue for the charter school until they enter kindergarten, or the first grade served by the charter school. In the event a charter school operates an early learning program of any sort, they would be required to refer any children that may warrant special education assessment to the child s resident school district. The Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) or Individualized Education Program (IEP) is developed by the resident school district and remains the responsibility of the school district. Early learning programs operated by charter schools do not enroll students as pupils and therefore, do not receive any sort of general educational aid for those students. These services could be provided at the resident district site or the special education teacher could provide the services at a child care program, center-based program or in the child s home. The time the child is participating in the child care program or center does not generate membership hours unless those services are required by the IEP/IFSP and appropriately licensed staff provides the service. Charter schools may wish to continue to offer specific programs that appeal to a subset of special needs early learners, as is the case with Metro Deaf, but they would need to do so via having the resident district enter into a student contract placement with the charter school to provide services to identified early learners. The charter would have their costs covered for providing the services by billing the resident district. K-12 Charter School Special Education Services There is no financial disincentive for charters to work with special education students. Their funding for special education comes out of the public school districts budgets. Charter schools bill the districts where students with disabilities reside for any special education costs that go unfunded by the state or federal government. According to state finance director Tom Melcher, students with disabilities should cost charters no more money than general education students. For district schools, unfunded cross-subsidy for special education costs can be significant. Unfunded costs come directly out of the districts general funds, essentially pulling money from the per-pupil dollars that they get for general education students. 3

19 Key Facts (from resolution 2) Overall the special education student population has risen from 13percent to 15percent of the state student body over the last decade. Nearly 125,000 children now qualify for services. Since 2003 the cross-subsidy has almost doubled, rising to $806 million in This shortfall, hit 30 school districts with a $1000 or greater cross-subsidy. Two-thirds (220) of Minnesota School District s shifted more than $500 per student into the crosssubsidy. Between rising need and insufficient state and federal aid the amount of funding school districts will be forced to pay for special education costs will reach an average of $815 per student in FY17. In 2013 the State Auditor, in response to the increasing costs of special education, the legislature requested the Office of Legislative Auditor to evaluate special education. Their key findings and recommendations make a case for a task force to evaluate and make recommendations to the legislature and bring this issue to the forefront again. Many Minnesota statutes and rules exceed federal requirements for special education, but detailed analyses of the requirements educational and cost impacts are not available. School districts pay the costs of special education when one of their resident students enrolls elsewhere, but resident districts have little control over those costs. This evaluation made is a point contention for school districts that pickup charter schools bills. Charter School General Education and Special Education Revenue Fiscal Year General Education Aid Entitlement* Special Education Direct Aid 2017 $485,490,000 $105,290, ,929, ,463, ,026,000 84,496, ,109,000 79,310, ,015,000 63,395, ,639,000 56,703, ,960,000 47,963, ,342,000 39,377, ,483,000 34,070, ,448,000 26,225, ,401,000 21,520, ,711,000 8,735, ,255,000 7,459, ,689,000 6,416, ,470,000 5,287,000 4

20 ,850,000 3,739, ,741,000 4,278, ,641,000 2,715,000 Discrepancies Across the State in Special Education Costs As we look at the average cross-subsidies for FY 2016 by school district size, based on the district-bydistrict and charter school data, we see the average adjusted net cross-subsidies per pupil unit are between $657 and $902 per pupil unit for all sizes of districts except for the smallest non-metro districts, which have an average cross-subsidy of $595 per pupil unit, and the Minneapolis and St. Paul districts, which have an average cross-subsidy of $1,225 per pupil unit. In contrast, the average cross-subsidy of charter schools was $88 per pupil unit. MSBA s present legislative policy 1.83, on page 3 states, Urges the legislature to support legislation that would allow local school districts the same flexibility as charter schools and further provide state aid to school districts for the full cost of providing transportation and special education services to charter schools. This resolution would only ask the legislature to fund the special education related costs. 5

21 Lastly, there is a unique special education obligation public schools have that charter school cannot do and that is early childhood special education. As the MDE from 2013 states, Child find for birth-tokindergarten enrollment is of necessity undertaken by resident districts because districts are responsible for a contiguous geographic area and therefore are obliged to ensure that all students in their geographic area are located. It is impossible for charter schools to undertake the same duties, as they have no defined population or geographic area they must serve. In addition, child identification duties for birth-tokindergarten enrollment students require significant coordination between a resident district and other agencies. There is no common-sense way to take this federal obligation/mandate away from Minnesota public schools and hand it to charter schools. It would get complicated for the state to enact legislation that would override federal law and change this obligation/mandate. PROS and CONS Pros: School districts would like charter schools treated in the same manner they are under state and federal law. This resolution could decrease the cross-subsidy for public schools while increasing it for charter schools. Cons: This resolution would limit MSBA advocacy to reimburse only special education costs by the state. MSBA present legislative policy covers special education costs and special education transportation costs. This a cross-subsidy problem not a charter school issue. The federal obligation for public school special education cannot be removed when it comes to early childhood special education. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION MSBA s present policy is more inclusive of the costs school districts face. The addition of special education transportation costs is significant for school district and it should not be lost. 6

22 2017 Delegate Assembly Proposed Legislative Resolutions SCHOOL FINANCE RESOLUTION #5 FUND GIFTED EDUCATION Name: Sarah Stivland, Stillwater School Board Member School district: Stillwater Area Public Schools - #834 Phone: (651) address: This resolution is submitted by the individual school board member. Recommendation: Passage RESOLUTION STATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, THAT MSBA URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO INCREASE GIFTED EDUCATION FUNDING TO $39.00/ADM AND THESE FUNDS SHALL BE USED FOR IDENTIFICATION, ACADEMIC PROGRAMING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS IMPROVED ACADEMIC EXPERIENCES FOR GIFTED STUDENTS IN MINNESOTA. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE BY SCHOOL DISTRICT Every child in the state of Minnesota has a right to a rigorous and challenging education. Because our gifted students have unique learning needs and social emotional differences, and because they have the capacity for superlative academic production, they require accommodations which encourage the growth and development of these special qualities. By continuing to not adequately address the educational needs of this group of students, we risk losing their hearts and minds for future contributions to our state. It is time we determine to wholeheartedly support the academic demands of this group of special students, and provide for significant increase in professional training and new programs designed to meet the learning needs for gifted students, which will improve academic outcomes and could potentially inspire extraordinary economic development, scientific discoveries and a better future for our state. This legislative resolution would be replaced. CURRENT POLICY Page 3, Urges the legislature to fund gifted education programs at least at a 50 percent reimbursement rate. CURRENT LAW Minn. Stat. 120B.15 GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDENTS PROGRAMS Minn. Stat. 126C.10 Subd. 2b. GIFTED AND TALENTED REVENUE 1

23 BACKGROUND BY MSBA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Definitions Average Daily Membership (ADM): students are counted in average daily membership. Average daily membership is the count of resident students in the district for the full school year. A resident student means a student who lives in that school district and attends a school district, charter school, or other public K-12 education program. Students that are present for only part of the year are prorated for their time attending the school. Excused absences from school (for things such as illness, etc.) do not reduce a school district s ADM. General intellectual ability: students who demonstrate a high aptitude for abstract reasoning and conceptualization, who master skills and concepts quickly, and/or exhibit advanced critical thinking capability. Specific academic aptitude: students who evidence extraordinary learning ability in one or more specific disciplines. Creative and critical thinking: students who are highly insightful, imaginative, and innovative; who consistently assimilate and synthesize seemingly unrelated information to create new and novel solutions for conventional tasks; and who can interpret, analyze, and evaluate information. Leadership ability: students who emerge as leaders, and who demonstrate high ability to accomplish group goals by working with and through others. Visual and performing arts: children who are consistently superior in the development of a product or performance in any of the visual and performing arts. Differentiated: modifications to the existing curriculum based on the academic needs, interests, and learning styles of students with different ability levels, which often involve increasing the scope, depth, and pace at which topics are taught to gifted students. Diverse: populations made up of group members who differ on a variety of characteristics, such as race, culture, socio-economic status, and language. This definition of gifted and talented children and youth is included in the MARSS manual (Minnesota Automated Reporting Student System), the individual student record system that serves as the Minnesota Department of Education s primary reporting system for student data. History Beginning in fiscal year 2006, each school district received $4 per pupil unit for gifted and talented programming. This amount was increased to $9 per pupil unit for fiscal year 2007 and further increased to $12 per pupil unit for fiscal years 2008 through For fiscal year 2015 and later, the formula allowance is increased to $13 per pupil unit to reflect the new, lower adjusted pupil count. The revenue must be reserved and spent only to: (1) identify gifted and talented students; (2) provide education programs for gifted and talented students; or (3) provide staff development to prepare teachers to teach gifted and talented students. Gifted and Talented Revenue = $13 x Adjusted Pupil Units 2

24 Statistics Number of public school students ( ) - 842,854 Number of public school students ( ) - 837,154 Number of public school students ( ) - 830,482 Students enrolled in grades K-12 ( ) - 823,235 Students identified as Gifted and Talented ( ) - Unknown Students identified as Gifted and Talented ( ) - Unknown Students identified as Gifted and Talented ( ) - Unknown Students identified as Gifted and Talented ( ) - 47,255 Dollars allocated for Gifted and Talented programming ( ) - UNKNOWN Dollars allocated for Gifted and Talented programming ( ) - $1.5 Million Dollars allocated for Gifted and Talented programming ( ) - $11,417,865 Dollars allocated for Gifted and Talented programming ( ) - $11,376,059 Dollars allocated for Gifted and Talented programming ( ) - $11,370,460 Total AP Exams taken ( ) - 70,669 Total AP Exams taken ( ) - 67,830 Total AP Exams taken ( ) - 64,709 Total AP Exams taken ( ) - 62,023 Mean Advanced Placement Score ( ) Mean Advanced Placement Score ( ) Percentage of scores of 3 or above on AP exams ( ) % Percentage of scores of 3 or above on AP exams ( ) % Percentage of scores of 3 or above on AP exams ( ) % Percentage of scores of 3 or above on AP exams ( ) % Number of schools offering International Baccalaureate programs ( ) - 61 Number of schools offering International Baccalaureate programs ( ) 21 Full-Time Gifted School Programs in Minnesota 1. Capitol Hill Magnet School (St. Paul) 2. Brainerd Enrichment Program (Brainerd) * 3. Arheneum (Inver Grove Heights) 4. Lighthouse Program (Spring Lake Park) 5. Dimensions Academy and Elements (Bloomington) 6. Gateway (Woodbury) 7. Friedell Middle School Highly Gifted & Sunset Terrace Elementary FT GT Program (Rochester) * 8. GATE (Stillwater) 9. Harriet Bishop Gifted and Talented Elementary and Eagle Ridge Jr. High Gifted and Talented Program (Burnsville, Eagan, Savage) 10. SAGE Academy (Prior Lake/Savage) 11. Navigator Program (Minnetonka) 12. Pinewood Elementary Gifted Program (Rosemount/Eagan/Apple Valley) 13. Quest Program (Buffalo/Hanover/Melrose) * 14. Ignite! (Lakeville) 15. Mosaic (Eden Prairie) 16. Odyssey (Blaine/Centerville, Lino Lakes/Lexington and Circle Pines) * 3

25 17. Cyprus Classical Academy (Burnsville) *4 out of 17 full-time gifted school programs are in Greater Minnesota. Presently The revenue for gifted and talented funding is $12,050,000 a year. Presently, there are 331 out of 332 school districts who are eligible for funding. Gifted and talented funding is.2 percent of the general education budget. MSBA s present policy asks for 50 percent of the costs to fund gifted education programs around the state. The percentage in this legislative resolution make it incapable of being actionable legislative agenda item. This new resolution would replace the present policy because it is clear about the state cost for this program. At $39 per ADM, the projection request for public and charter school students statewide for FY 19 is 863,519. The appropriation would go to $33,677,241. This resolution would ask for an additional $21,627,241 general education funding. District by district runs found on pages 4-15 of this document. PROS and CONS Pros: Cons: Gifted and talented funding has never been fully funded. What if full funding? Programming for gifted and talented would double present funding levels. This resolution allows MSBA to have a legislative position which can be advocated more effectively than the former policy (1.15, page 3). MSBA s highest priority remains the general education formula. This resolution would not assure that every school district could have a gifted and talented program available to students. The revenue proposed in this resolution would be targeted for only gifted and talented students and programs. Thus, creating a categorical. Is this resolution the most pressing need for all schools? SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION Supporting this resolution would update MSBA s gifted and talented policy and replace with a clear, actionable goal which could be addressed through the state legislature. Increase by School District Gifted and Talented Revenue increased to $39.00 per ADM (by Tom Melcher, Minnesota Department of Education) 4

26 DIST TYPE NAME AADM19a $13 Increase $39 Increase Increase Difference 1 1 AITKIN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,957 44,870 29, MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST. 34, ,377 1,351, , HILL CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,335 10,005 6, MCGREGOR PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,106 18,318 12, SOUTH ST. PAUL PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST. 3, , ,774 93, ANOKA-HENNEPIN PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST. 38, ,297 1,497, , CENTENNIAL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 6, , , , COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST 3, , ,380 86, FRIDLEY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 3, , ,787 81, ST. FRANCIS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 4, , , , SPRING LAKE PARK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 5, , , , DETROIT LAKES PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST. 3, , ,595 80, FRAZEE-VERGAS PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST ,695 35,085 23, PINE POINT PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,748 1, BEMIDJI PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 5, , , , BLACKDUCK PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,761 23,283 15, KELLIHER PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,743 11,229 7, RED LAKE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,095 66,285 44, SAUK RAPIDS-RICE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 4, , , , FOLEY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,325 69,975 46, ST. CLAIR PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,708 26,124 17, MANKATO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 8, , , , COMFREY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,865 5,596 3, SLEEPY EYE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,856 23,568 15, SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,130 21,389 14, NEW ULM PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, ,714 83,143 55, BARNUM PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,596 28,789 19, CARLTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,724 17,173 11, CLOQUET PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, , ,661 73, CROMWELL-WRIGHT PUBLIC SCHOOLS ,051 12,152 8, MOOSE LAKE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,772 26,316 17, ESKO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,518 49,554 33, WRENSHALL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,912 14,737 9, CENTRAL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,423 40,269 26, WACONIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 4, , , , WATERTOWN-MAYER PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST. 1, ,506 64,518 43, EASTERN CARVER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL 9, , , , WALKER-HACKENSACK-AKELEY SCHL. DIST ,194 27,582 18, CASS LAKE-BENA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1, ,458 46,373 30, PILLAGER PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,088 45,265 30, NORTHLAND COMMUNITY SCHOOLS ,298 12,895 8, MONTEVIDEO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,080 60,239 40, NORTH BRANCH PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2, , ,599 75, RUSH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,401 34,203 22, BARNESVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST ,320 33,960 22, HAWLEY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,033 36,099 24, MOORHEAD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 6, , , , BAGLEY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,552 40,657 27, COOK COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ,732 17,195 11, MOUNTAIN LAKE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ,412 19,236 12, WINDOM PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,322 42,966 28, BRAINERD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 6, , , , CROSBY-IRONTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST. 1, ,408 40,225 26, PEQUOT LAKES PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1, ,909 65,727 43, BURNSVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 9, , , , FARMINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 6, , , , LAKEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 10, , , , RANDOLPH PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,795 26,385 17, ROSEMOUNT-APPLE VALLEY-EAGAN 28, ,525 1,126, , WEST ST. PAUL-MENDOTA HTS.-EAGAN 5, , , , INVER GROVE HEIGHTS SCHOOLS 3, , , , HASTINGS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 4, , , ,289.02

27 203 1 HAYFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,836 26,509 17, KASSON-MANTORVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, ,122 84,366 56, ALEXANDRIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 4, , , , OSAKIS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,674 32,022 21, CHATFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS ,832 35,497 23, LANESBORO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,875 11,624 7, MABEL-CANTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST ,176 9,527 6, RUSHFORD-PETERSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS ,509 25,526 17, ALBERT LEA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 3, , ,996 90, ALDEN-CONGER PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,437 19,312 12, CANNON FALLS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,580 43,740 29, GOODHUE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,296 24,889 16, PINE ISLAND PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST. 1, ,997 50,990 33, RED WING PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, , ,793 69, ASHBY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,488 10,464 6, HERMAN-NORCROSS SCHOOL DISTRICT ,374 4,121 2, HOPKINS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 6, , , , BLOOMINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 10, , , , EDEN PRAIRIE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 8, , , , EDINA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 8, , , , MINNETONKA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 10, , , , WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, ,025 96,075 64, ORONO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, , ,483 74, OSSEO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 20, , , , RICHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 4, , , , ROBBINSDALE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 12, , , , ST. ANTHONY-NEW BRIGHTON SCHOOLS 1, ,144 69,432 46, ST. LOUIS PARK PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST. 4, , , , WAYZATA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 12, , , , BROOKLYN CENTER SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, ,533 94,598 63, HOUSTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, ,586 79,757 53, SPRING GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT ,466 13,399 8, CALEDONIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,012 27,036 18, LA CRESCENT-HOKAH SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,019 42,057 28, LAPORTE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,128 12,383 8, NEVIS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,162 24,486 16, PARK RAPIDS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,124 63,371 42, BRAHAM PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,992 29,977 19, GREENWAY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,514 40,541 27, DEER RIVER PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,952 35,857 23, GRAND RAPIDS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 3, , , , NASHWAUK-KEEWATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT ,826 23,479 15, FRANCONIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT HERON LAKE-OKABENA SCHOOL DISTRICT ,163 9,488 6, MORA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,105 63,315 42, OGILVIE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,559 19,677 13, NEW LONDON-SPICER SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,018 60,055 40, WILLMAR PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 4, , , , LANCASTER PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,240 6,720 4, INTERNATIONAL FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,742 41,226 27, LITTLEFORK-BIG FALLS SCHOOL DIST ,347 13,041 8, SOUTH KOOCHICHING SCHOOL DISTRICT ,288 9,865 6, DAWSON-BOYD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,366 22,097 14, LAKE SUPERIOR PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST. 1, ,834 53,501 35, LAKE OF THE WOODS SCHOOL DISTRICT ,007 18,022 12, CLEVELAND PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,656 19,969 13, HENDRICKS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,586 4,757 3, IVANHOE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,808 5,424 3, LAKE BENTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,490 7,471 4, MARSHALL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, , ,294 66, MINNEOTA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,037 18,110 12, LYND PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,208 6,625 4, HUTCHINSON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, , ,642 71, LESTER PRAIRIE PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST ,628 16,884 11,256.18

28 432 1 MAHNOMEN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,898 23,695 15, WAUBUN-OGEMA-WHITE EARTH PUBLIC SCH ,112 24,337 16, MARSHALL COUNTY CENTRAL SCHOOLS ,979 14,936 9, GRYGLA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,979 5,936 3, TRUMAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,591 7,772 5, EDEN VALLEY-WATKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT ,627 37,882 25, LITCHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,960 59,879 39, DASSEL-COKATO PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST. 2, ,603 85,809 57, ISLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,902 17,706 11, PRINCETON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 3, , ,202 84, ONAMIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,601 25,804 17, LITTLE FALLS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, ,903 89,710 59, PIERZ PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,305 45,916 30, ROYALTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,374 37,122 24, SWANVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,264 12,791 8, UPSALA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,893 14,678 9, AUSTIN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 4, , , , GRAND MEADOW PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,627 16,880 11, LYLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,446 10,339 6, LEROY-OSTRANDER PUBLIC SCHOOLS ,816 11,447 7, SOUTHLAND PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,768 14,303 9, FULDA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,834 11,501 7, NICOLLET PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,729 14,186 9, ST. PETER PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, ,278 84,833 56, ADRIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,195 21,586 14, ELLSWORTH PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,746 5,237 3, WORTHINGTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 3, , ,004 91, BYRON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, ,833 83,498 55, DOVER-EYOTA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,591 46,772 31, STEWARTVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, ,509 82,527 55, ROCHESTER PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 17, , , , BATTLE LAKE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,413 16,240 10, FERGUS FALLS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, , ,479 71, HENNING PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,526 13,578 9, PARKERS PRAIRIE PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST ,893 20,680 13, PELICAN RAPIDS PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST ,581 34,743 23, PERHAM-DENT PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,345 55,034 36, UNDERWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,278 21,835 14, NEW YORK MILLS PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST ,628 28,884 19, GOODRIDGE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,839 8,517 5, THIEF RIVER FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,598 76,795 51, WILLOW RIVER PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,633 16,899 11, PINE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,915 62,745 41, EDGERTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,266 15,799 10, CLIMAX-SHELLY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ,361 7,082 4, CROOKSTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,353 49,058 32, EAST GRAND FORKS PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST 1, ,214 75,641 50, FERTILE-BELTRAMI SCHOOL DISTRICT ,148 18,443 12, FISHER PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,347 10,040 6, FOSSTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,173 24,520 16, MOUNDS VIEW PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 11, , , , NORTH ST PAUL-MAPLEWOOD OAKDALE DIS 10, , , , ROSEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 7, , , , WHITE BEAR LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT 8, , , , ST. PAUL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 36, ,089 1,422, , RED LAKE FALLS PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST ,681 14,043 9, MILROY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,775 1, WABASSO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,039 15,116 10, FARIBAULT PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 3, , ,862 96, NORTHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 4, , , , HILLS-BEAVER CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT ,973 14,918 9, BADGER PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,409 7,227 4, ROSEAU PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,170 45,510 30, WARROAD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,340 40,019 26,679.64

29 695 1 CHISHOLM PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,590 28,770 19, ELY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,850 20,550 13, FLOODWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,046 9,137 6, HERMANTOWN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, ,036 81,108 54, HIBBING PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, ,981 92,943 61, PROCTOR PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,517 70,550 47, VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,967 68,901 45, NETT LAKE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,434 4,301 2, DULUTH PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 8, , , , MOUNTAIN IRON-BUHL SCHOOL DISTRICT ,254 18,761 12, BELLE PLAINE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,210 63,630 42, JORDAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,006 72,017 48, PRIOR LAKE-SAVAGE AREA SCHOOLS 8, , , , SHAKOPEE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 8, , , , NEW PRAGUE AREA SCHOOLS 4, , , , BECKER PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, , ,485 74, BIG LAKE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, , ,472 76, ELK RIVER PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 13, , , , HOLDINGFORD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,527 40,580 27, KIMBALL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,787 29,360 19, MELROSE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,956 50,869 33, PAYNESVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,056 36,167 24, ST. CLOUD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 10, , , , SAUK CENTRE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,915 41,744 27, ALBANY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,512 70,537 47, SARTELL-ST. STEPHEN SCHOOL DISTRICT 3, , , , ROCORI PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, ,695 80,085 53, BLOOMING PRAIRIE PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST ,819 29,456 19, OWATONNA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 4, , , , MEDFORD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,331 33,993 22, HANCOCK PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,708 14,124 9, CHOKIO-ALBERTA PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST ,091 6,272 4, KERKHOVEN-MURDOCK-SUNBURG ,463 28,390 18, BENSON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,967 32,902 21, BERTHA-HEWITT PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST ,728 17,185 11, BROWERVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,013 21,039 14, BROWNS VALLEY PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST ,975 5,926 3, WHEATON AREA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,027 15,082 10, WABASHA-KELLOGG PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST ,974 20,922 13, LAKE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,436 49,307 32, VERNDALE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,165 21,496 14, SEBEKA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,782 20,347 13, MENAHGA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,020 42,060 28, WASECA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,007 72,022 48, FOREST LAKE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 6, , , , MAHTOMEDI PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 3, , ,129 85, SOUTH WASHINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DIST 18, , , , STILLWATER AREA PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST. 8, , , , BUTTERFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,046 9,137 6, MADELIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,401 22,203 14, ST. JAMES PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,843 41,528 27, BRECKENRIDGE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,458 25,374 16, ROTHSAY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,091 12,273 8, CAMPBELL-TINTAH PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST ,870 5,609 3, LEWISTON-ALTURA PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST ,800 29,400 19, ST. CHARLES PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,398 37,194 24, WINONA AREA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 3, , ,231 78, ANNANDALE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,311 69,932 46, BUFFALO-HANOVER-MONTROSE PUBLIC SCH 5, , , , DELANO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 2, , ,727 67, MAPLE LAKE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,688 32,063 21, MONTICELLO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 4, , , , ROCKFORD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,312 66,935 44, ST. MICHAEL-ALBERTVILLE SCHOOL DIST 6, , , ,426.26

30 891 1 CANBY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,454 19,363 12, CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST 5, , , , MILACA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,389 70,166 46, ULEN-HITTERDAL PUBLIC SCHOOL DIST ,508 10,523 7, LAKE CRYSTAL-WELLCOME MEMORIAL ,141 36,422 24, TRITON SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,511 46,532 31, UNITED SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST ,143 27,430 18, MAPLE RIVER SCHOOL DISTRICT ,953 35,858 23, KINGSLAND PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,691 23,074 15, ST. LOUIS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,987 74,960 49, WATERVILLE-ELYSIAN-MORRISTOWN ,988 29,963 19, CHISAGO LAKES SCHOOL DISTRICT 3, , ,592 87, MINNEWASKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,656 46,968 31, EVELETH-GILBERT SCHOOL DISTRICT ,482 37,446 24, WADENA-DEER CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,685 41,054 27, BUFFALO LK-HECTOR-STEWART PUBLIC SC ,885 20,656 13, DILWORTH-GLYNDON-FELTON 1, ,007 66,022 44, HINCKLEY-FINLAYSON SCHOOL DISTRICT ,910 38,731 25, LAKEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT ,537 25,610 17, NRHEG SCHOOL DISTRICT ,504 34,512 23, MURRAY COUNTY CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST ,498 28,494 18, STAPLES-MOTLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,544 43,633 29, KITTSON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ,002 9,005 6, KENYON-WANAMINGO SCHOOL DISTRICT ,098 30,294 20, PINE RIVER-BACKUS SCHOOL DISTRICT ,620 37,860 25, WARREN-ALVARADO-OSLO SCHOOL DIST ,187 18,560 12, M.A.C.C.R.A.Y. SCHOOL DISTRICT ,669 26,006 17, LUVERNE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,103 48,308 32, YELLOW MEDICINE EAST ,435 28,304 18, FILLMORE CENTRAL ,682 23,046 15, NORMAN COUNTY EAST SCHOOL DISTRICT ,691 11,074 7, SIBLEY EAST SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,890 44,669 29, CLEARBROOK-GONVICK SCHOOL DISTRICT ,298 15,894 10, WEST CENTRAL AREA ,350 28,050 18, TRI-COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ,500 7,499 4, BELGRADE-BROOTEN-ELROSA SCHOOL DIST ,589 22,767 15, G.F.W ,582 28,746 19, A.C.G.C. PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,044 30,133 20, LE SUEUR-HENDERSON SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,071 39,213 26, MARTIN COUNTY WEST SCHOOL DISTRICT ,494 28,481 18, NORMAN COUNTY WEST SCHOOL DISTRICT ,117 9,351 6, BIRD ISLAND-OLIVIA-LAKE LILLIAN ,919 26,758 17, GRANADA HUNTLEY-EAST CHAIN ,537 10,610 7, EAST CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ,363 28,088 18, WIN-E-MAC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,493 16,478 10, GREENBUSH-MIDDLE RIVER SCHOOL DIST ,945 14,834 9, HOWARD LAKE-WAVERLY-WINSTED 1, ,168 48,504 32, PIPESTONE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,748 44,243 29, MESABI EAST SCHOOL DISTRICT ,371 37,112 24, FAIRMONT AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,935 65,806 43, LONG PRAIRIE-GREY EAGLE SCHOOL DIST ,998 35,995 23, CEDAR MOUNTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICT ,471 19,412 12, MORRIS AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1, ,462 40,386 26, ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,591 49,772 33, JANESVILLE-WALDORF-PEMBERTON ,550 25,651 17, LAC QUI PARLE VALLEY SCHOOL DIST ,298 30,895 20, ADA-BORUP PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,760 20,281 13, STEPHEN-ARGYLE CENTRAL SCHOOLS ,753 11,259 7, GLENCOE-SILVER LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,225 63,674 42, BLUE EARTH AREA PUBLIC SCHOOL 1, ,947 47,841 31, RED ROCK CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ,971 14,914 9, GLENVILLE-EMMONS SCHOOL DISTRICT ,285 12,854 8, CLINTON-GRACEVILLE-BEARDSLEY ,403 13,210 8, LAKE PARK AUDUBON SCHOOL DISTRICT ,143 27,429 18,286.32

31 RENVILLE COUNTY WEST SCHOOL DIST ,649 19,947 13, JACKSON COUNTY CENTRAL SCHOOL DIST. 1, ,036 45,108 30, REDWOOD AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,392 43,177 28, WESTBROOK-WALNUT GROVE SCHOOLS ,851 14,552 9, PLAINVIEW-ELGIN-MILLVILLE 1, ,816 56,447 37, RTR PUBLIC SCHOOLS ,571 22,712 15, ORTONVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ,507 19,522 13, TRACY AREA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT ,187 27,561 18, TRI-CITY UNITED SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ,384 76,151 50, RED LAKE COUNTY CENTRAL PUBLIC SCH ,006 15,018 10, ROUND LAKE-BREWSTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS ,538 13,615 9, BRANDON-EVANSVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ,293 18,878 12, CITY ACADEMY ,430 4,290 2, BLUFFVIEW MONTESSORI ,665 7,995 5, NEW HEIGHTS SCHOOL, INC ,807 5,421 3, CEDAR RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY SCHOOL ,405 7,215 4, METRO DEAF SCHOOL , MINNESOTA NEW COUNTRY SCHOOL ,769 8,307 5, PACT CHARTER SCHOOL ,476 25,428 16, ATHLOS LEADERSHIP ACADEMY 1, ,300 42,900 28, COMMUNITY OF PEACE ACADEMY ,085 30,256 20, WORLD LEARNER CHARTER SCHOOL ,847 8,541 5, MINNESOTA TRANSITIONS CHARTER SCH 3, , ,399 84, ACHIEVE LANGUAGE ACADEMY ,850 17,550 11, DULUTH PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACADEMY 1, ,477 67,431 44, CYBER VILLAGE ACADEMY ,846 5,538 3, E.C.H.O. CHARTER SCHOOL ,508 4,524 3, HIGHER GROUND ACADEMY ,945 29,835 19, ST. PAUL CITY SCHOOL ,466 19,399 12, JENNINGS COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTER ,769 1, HARVEST PREPARATORY SCHOOL ,925 8,775 5, LIFE PREP ,718 11,154 7, FACE TO FACE ACADEMY ,872 1, SOJOURNER TRUTH ACADEMY ,192 15,577 10, HIGH SCHOOL FOR RECORDING ARTS ,160 12,480 8, MATH AND SCIENCE ACADEMY ,292 18,876 12, NORTHWEST PASSAGE HIGH SCHOOL ,950 5,850 3, LAFAYETTE PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL ,092 3,276 2, NORTH LAKES ACADEMY ,421 16,263 10, LA CRESCENT MONTESSORI & STEM SCHOO ,014 3,042 2, NERSTRAND CHARTER SCHOOL ,950 5,850 3, ROCHESTER OFF-CAMPUS CHARTER HIGH ,170 3,510 2, EL COLEGIO CHARTER SCHOOL ,365 4,095 2, SCHOOLCRAFT LEARNING COMMUNITY CHTR ,522 7,566 5, CROSSLAKE COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL ,911 5,733 3, RIVERWAY LEARNING COMMUNITY CHTR ,435 4,306 2, KATO PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL ,340 1, AURORA CHARTER SCHOOL ,538 16,614 11, EXCELL ACADEMY CHARTER ,058 18,174 12, HOPE COMMUNITY ACADEMY ,890 20,670 13, ACADEMIA CESAR CHAVEZ CHARTER SCH ,410 22,230 14, AFSA HIGH SCHOOL ,135 15,405 10, AVALON SCHOOL ,249 6,747 4, TWIN CITIES INTERNATIONAL ELEM SCH ,605 22,815 15, MINNESOTA INTERNATIONAL MIDDLE CHTR ,188 18,564 12, FRIENDSHIP ACDMY OF FINE ARTS CHTR ,950 5,850 3, PILLAGER AREA CHARTER SCHOOL ,560 1, DISCOVERY PUBLIC SCHOOL FARIBAULT ,340 1, BLUESKY CHARTER SCHOOL ,435 19,305 12, RIDGEWAY COMMUNITY SCHOOL ,222 3,666 2, NORTH SHORE COMMUNITY SCHOOL ,550 13,650 9, HARBOR CITY INTERNATIONAL CHARTER ,055 9,165 6, SAGE ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL ,001 3,003 2, URBAN ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL ,264 12,792 8,528.00

32 NEW CITY SCHOOL ,017 12,051 8, PRAIRIE CREEK COMMUNITY SCHOOL ,340 7,020 4, ARCADIA CHARTER SCHOOL ,586 4,758 3, WATERSHED HIGH SCHOOL ,496 1, NEW CENTURY ACADEMY ,560 4,680 3, TRIO WOLF CREEK DISTANCE LEARNING ,600 7,800 5, PARTNERSHIP ACADEMY, INC ,523 10,569 7, NOVA CLASSICAL ACADEMY ,883 38,649 25, GREAT EXPECTATIONS ,521 4,563 3, MINNESOTA INTERNSHIP CENTER ,450 25,350 16, HMONG COLLEGE PREP ACADEMY 2, ,650 79,950 53, PALADIN CAREER AND TECH HIGH SCHOOL ,925 8,775 5, GREAT RIVER SCHOOL ,527 22,581 15, TREKNORTH HIGH SCHOOL ,055 9,165 6, VOYAGEURS EXPEDITIONARY ,456 4,368 2, MAIN STREET SCHOOL PERFORMING ARTS ,875 14,625 9, AUGSBURG FAIRVIEW ACADEMY ,365 4,095 2, ST PAUL CONSERVATORY PERFORMING ART ,060 24,180 16, Spero Academy ,716 5,148 3, LAKES INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE ACADEM 1, ,107 48,321 32, KALEIDOSCOPE CHARTER SCHOOL ,983 26,949 17, ACADEMIC ARTS HIGH SCHOOL ,145 1, ST. CROIX PREPARATORY ACADEMY 1, ,236 45,708 30, UBAH MEDICAL ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL ,160 12,480 8, EAGLE RIDGE ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL 1, ,630 58,890 39, BEACON ACADEMY ,216 24,648 16, PRAIRIE SEEDS ACADEMY ,023 30,069 20, TEAM ACADEMY ,534 4,602 3, METRO SCHOOLS CHARTER ,550 13,650 9, TWIN CITIES ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL ,086 24,258 16, ROCHESTER MATH AND SCIENCE ACADEMY ,550 13,650 9, SWAN RIVER MONTESSORI CHARTER SCH ,950 5,850 3, MILROY AREA CHARTER SCHOOL ,872 1, LOVEWORKS ACADEMY FOR ARTS ,926 11,778 7, YINGHUA ACADEMY ,724 29,172 19, STRIDE ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL ,043 12,129 8, NEW MILLENNIUM ACADEMY CHARTER SCH ,724 29,172 19, GREEN ISLE COMMUNITY SCHOOL ,223 1, BIRCH GROVE COMMUNITY SCHOOL , NORTHERN LIGHTS COMMUNITY SCHOOL ,339 4,017 2, MINNESOTA ONLINE HIGH SCHOOL ,054 6,162 4, EDVISIONS OFF CAMPUS SCHOOL ,365 4,095 2, TWIN CITIES GERMAN IMMERSION CHTR ,254 21,762 14, DUGSI ACADEMY ,174 15,522 10, NAYTAHWAUSH COMMUNITY SCHOOL ,404 4,212 2, SEVEN HILLS PREPARATORY ACADEMY 1, ,156 39,468 26, SPECTRUM HIGH SCHOOL ,335 31,005 20, NEW DISCOVERIES MONTESSORI ACADEMY ,699 8,096 5, SOUTHSIDE FAMILY CHARTER SCHOOL ,521 4,563 3, LEARNING FOR LEADERSHIP CHARTER ,081 9,243 6, LAURA JEFFREY ACADEMY CHARTER ,430 4,290 2, EAST RANGE ACADEMY OF TECH-SCIENCE ,755 5,265 3, INTERNATIONAL SPANISH LANGUAGE ACAD ,524 13,572 9, GLACIAL HILLS ELEMENTARY ,352 4,056 2, STONEBRIDGE WORLD SCHOOL ,510 10,530 7, HIAWATHA ACADEMIES 1, ,292 57,876 38, NOBLE ACADEMY ,856 35,568 23, CLARKFIELD CHARTER SCHOOL ,223 1, MINISINAAKWAANG LEADERSHIP ACADEMY , LINCOLN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ,560 4,680 3, COMMUNITY SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE 1, ,885 44,655 29, LIONSGATE ACADEMY ,574 7,722 5, ASPEN ACADEMY ,242 24,726 16, DAVINCI ACADEMY ,998 32,994 21,996.00

33 GLOBAL ACADEMY ,499 16,497 10, NATURAL SCIENCE ACADEMY ,118 3,354 2, COLOGNE ACADEMY ,541 25,623 17, BRIGHT WATER ELEMENTARY ,821 8,463 5, RIVERS EDGE ACADEMY ,652 1, KIPP MINNESOTA CHARTER SCHOOL ,421 16,263 10, BEST ACADEMY ,475 22,425 14, COLLEGE PREPARATORY ELEMENTARY ,940 14,820 9, CANNON RIVER STEM SCHOOL ,862 14,586 9, OSHKI OGIMAAG CHARTER SCHOOL DISCOVERY WOODS MONTESSORI SCHOOL ,417 4,251 2, PARNASSUS PREPARATORY CHARTER SCH 1, ,755 44,265 29, STEP ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL ,720 17,160 11, CORNERSTONE MONTESSORI ELEMENTARY ,781 5,343 3, ROCHESTER STEM ACADEMY ,365 4,095 2, HENNEPIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ,110 18,330 12, VERMILION COUNTRY SCHOOL ,418 1, NASHA SHKOLA CHARTER SCHOOL ,820 5,460 3, MASTERY SCHOOL ,600 7,800 5, UPPER MISSISSIPPI ACADEMY ,835 11,505 7, WEST SIDE SUMMIT CHARTER SCHOOL ,106 6,318 4, PRODEO ACADEMY ,679 26,036 17, SEJONG ACADEMY OF MINNESOTA ,275 6,825 4, TECHNICAL ACADEMIES OF MINNESOTA ,301 6,903 4, VENTURE ACADEMY ,550 13,650 9, NORTHEAST COLLEGE PREP ,200 15,600 10, AGAMIM CLASSICAL ACADEMY ,380 10,140 6, DISCOVERY CHARTER SCHOOL ,640 10,920 7, SAINT CLOUD MATH AND SCIENCE ACADEM ,210 6,630 4, STAR OF THE NORTH ACADEMY CHARTER S ,080 6,240 4, UNIVERSAL ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL ,810 14,430 9, BDOTE LEARNING CENTER ,105 3,315 2, ART AND SCIENCE ACADEMY ,188 18,564 12, WOODBURY LEADERSHIP ACADEMY ,406 10,218 6, JANE GOODALL ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ,430 4,290 2, MINNESOTA EARLY LEARNING ACADEMY ,185 9,555 6, MINNESOTA MATH AND SCIENCE ACADEMY ,890 20,670 13, SUMMIT CHARTER SCHOOL ,105 3,315 2, LEVEL UP ACADEMY ,430 4,290 2, METRO EDUCATION FOR FUTURE EMPLOY ,105 3,315 2, ROCHESTER BEACON ACADEMY ,950 5,850 3, TESFA INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ,145 6,435 4, New Century School ,340 7,020 4, North Metro Flex Academy ,600 7,800 5, FIT Academy ,470 7,410 4, Big Picture Twin Cities ,170 3,510 2, Athlos Academy of Saint Cloud ,230 27,690 18, Marine Area Community School ,470 7,410 4, ,971 11,348,620 34,045,860 22,697,240.28

34 2017 Delegate Assembly Proposed Legislative Resolutions SCHOOL FINANCE RESOLUTION #6 INDEX THE BASE FUNDING FORMULA TO INFLATION School District: Duluth Public Schools ISD 709 Phone: (218) This resolution is submitted with the support of the school board. Recommendation: Passage RESOLUTION STATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, THAT MSBA URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO INCREASE THE BASE FUNDING FORMULA AND INDEX IT TO THE RATE OF INFLATION IN ORDER TO PROTECT AGAINST FUTURE INCREASED COSTS. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE BY SCHOOL DISTRICT The legislature continues to not fully meet funding commitments for special education made in state statute. Because of this, local districts are obligated to provide special education funding through a crosssubsidy from general fund dollars that would otherwise lower class sizes and provide professional development. CURRENT POLICY Page 1, The MSBA supports a General Education Revenue Program that provides for adequate, stable, and equitable revenue as follows: Urges the legislature to support a uniform and equal application of the funding and policy components that will ensure adequate, equitable, and stable revenue for Minnesota s public school districts; Supports designation of public education as the state s highest funding priority; Urges the legislature to increase the General Education Revenue Program basic allowance by at least the rate of inflation; Supports additional revenue to school districts that have costs related to sparsity, compensatory funding based on student eligibility for free and reduced lunch, and declining enrollment and growth; Supports equitable revenue access for all school districts through reduction of revenue disparities by leveling up low revenue access districts; Supports legislation giving special consideration to providing adequate funding formulas, in addition to the General Education Revenue Program, for Summer Education Programs (through an equalized levy funding formula) and Staff Development/Improvement Programs; and Supports increases to the basic General Education Formula allowance in a manner that produces a similar revenue increase among all school districts without further restricting local school board autonomy in the use of those funds (referendum deduct is an example). 1

35 CURRENT LAW Minn. Stat. 126C.10 GENERAL EDUCATION REVENUE BACKGROUND BY MSBA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Consumer Price Index (CPI) The Consumer Price Index is a measure that examines the weighted average of prices of a basket of consumer goods and services, such as transportation, food and medical care. It is calculated by taking price changes for each item in the predetermined basket of goods and averaging them. The CPI is used by Minnesota Department of Education as an adjustment factor for referendum levies. General Education Formula Allowance General education formula allowance is dollar amount per pupil unit used to calculate each district s basic general education revenue. The formula allowance for fiscal year 2019 is $6,312. Following in Figure 1 is the formula history since 1989 in dollar amounts, an adjusted formula amount as an accounting adjustment to represent new money to schools and the associated percentage increases. *The last column is added by MSBA with permission, and represents inflation using the CPI. Figure 1. Financing Education in Minnesota A Publication of the Minnesota House of Representatives Fiscal Analysis Department Consumer Price Index General Ed Formula Allowance Statutory Dollar Increase in Formula Formula Increase Adjusted for Roll-ins and Roll-outs & pupil weight changes % Increase for Adjusted Formulas Biennial Adjusted Formula Increases Over Previous Year Federal Reserve Bank of MPLS* 2019 $6,312 $124 $ % 4% 2018 $6,188 $121 $ % 2017 $6,067 $119 $ % 4% 1.8% 2016 $5,948 $117 $ % 1.3% 2015 $5,831 $529 $ % 3.5% 0.1% 2014 $5,302 $78 $78 1.5% 1.6% 2013 $5,224 $50 $50 1.0% 2.0% 1.5% 2012 $5,174 $50 $50 1.0% 2.1% 2011 $5,124 $0 $0 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 2010 $5,124 $0 $0 0.0% 1.6% 2009 $5,124 $50 $50 1.0% 3.0% -0.4% 2008 $5,074 $100 $ % 3.8% 2007 $4,974 $181 $ % 8.1% 2.9% 2

36 Consumer Price Index General Ed Formula Allowance Statutory Dollar Increase in Formula Formula Increase Adjusted for Roll-ins and Roll-outs & pupil weight changes % Increase for Adjusted Formulas Biennial Adjusted Formula Increases Over Previous Year Federal Reserve Bank of MPLS* 2006 $4,783 $182 $ % 3.2% 2005 $4,601 $0 $0 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 2004 $4,601 $0 $0 0.0% 2.7% 2003 $4,601 $533 $ % 5.3% 2.3% 2002 $4,068 $104 $ % 1.6% 2001 $3,964 $224 $ % 9.2% 2.8% 2000 $3,740 $210 $ % 3.4% 1999 $3,530 -$51 $79 2.2% 4.4% 2.2% 1998 $3,581 $76 $76 2.2% 1.6% 1997 $3,505 $300 $0 0.0% 1.8% 2.3% 1996 $3,205 $55 $55 1.7% 2.9% 1995 $3,150 $100 $0 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 1994 $3,050 $0 $0 0.0% 2.6% 1993 $3,050 $0 $0 0.0% 3.3% 3.0% 1992 $3,050 $97 $97 3.3% 3.0% 1991 $2,953 $115 $ % 7.2% 4.2% 1990 $2,838 $83 $83 3.0% 5.4% 1989 $2, % Notes to Formula Adjustments In 2015: The $529 increase included a pupil weight adjustment of $424 to account for lower pupil weights and other changes to the general education program. In 2003: In 2001: In 2000: In 1999: In 1997: In 1995: The $533 increase included a $415 roll-in of referendum revenue and a $14 roll-in of assurance of mastery revenue The $224 increase was reduced by the $67 roll-in of cooperation revenue The $210 increase was reduced by the $43 roll-in of graduation rule revenue The $51 decrease was offset by the restoration of $130 for training and experience revenue The $300 increase was offset by reductions in training and experience and transportation funding For most school districts, the $100 increase was offset by a corresponding reduction in referendum revenue House Research Department 3

37 RATIONALE MSBA currently has a policy position which states that the General Education Revenue Program be increased by at least inflation. This resolution urges the legislature to index the basic formula (a component of the General Education Revenue Program) to be indexed for inflation. Indexing the basic formula by inflation would strengthen our previous policy especially when we have fallen short of inflation. General Education Program Components The general education program is where districts receive the majority of money to manage public schools. As Figure 2 clearly illustrates, the basic education formula makes up the bulk of the general education revenue at 71 percent of general education revenue. When school districts do not receive at least an inflationary increase on the basic formula, schools are required to cut staff and services provided the previous year. Figure 2. Financing Education in Minnesota A Publication of the Minnesota House of Representatives Fiscal Analysis Department Basic Education Formula According to Figure 3, in 2019 dollars we have lost $595 per pupil due to a lack of inflationary increase. While the basic formula has lagged inflation, the legislature has increased the expectations and continues to add new requirements such as World s Best Workforce and the Every Student Succeeds Act, statewide teacher evaluation, statewide health insurance requirements, Safe and Supportive Schools Act, an increased employer share of pensions, special education cross-subsidy and closing the achievement gap for students of color, poverty and English learners and new security protocols. 4

38 Figure 3. Provided by Tom Melcher Minnesota Department of Education PROS and CONS Pros: Despite significant investments over the previous six years, the basic education formula increases have fallen short of CPI 16 out of 28 years since (See Figure 1) In 2019 dollars we have lost $595 per pupil due to a lack of inflationary increase. (See Figure 3) Basic formula accounts for a big portion (71 percent) of schools base funding. (See Figure 2) The basic education formula has not kept up with inflation while the mandates have increased. Minnesota can t afford to stand by and allow that to happen for the next 30 years. The current formula is set at $6,312 per pupil in fiscal year This is the primary revenue source which purchases regular classroom teacher salaries and benefits, buses and costs associated (drivers, gasoline), paraprofessionals salaries, learning materials, teacher training, unfunded special education services and teachers, co-curricular opportunities, one-to-one initiatives, STEM learning, career and tech ready coursework, accountability systems and other state requirements. These expenses are subject to inflation. We need increases consummate to inflation. In the absence of inflation, school districts are more reliant on local operating referenda. The base formula has not kept up with inflation, we must take action to protect schools in the future. Automatic inflationary increases to the basic formula would allow local school districts the ability to plan and project for future revenues and budgets. Long-term planning would be improved and become more realistic. Cons: Some will see this move as putting public education on automatic pilot. Some will see this as the opportunity to reduce other funding categories. 5

39 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION The Minnesota Constitution requires a thorough and efficient system of public education in Minnesota. The basic funding formula is the revenue all our school districts depend on to provide appropriate educational services and opportunities to our students. While the legislature has provided new revenue to our school districts, the basic formula still lags inflation. This proposed inflationary increase addresses the inflation gap and protects local school districts against inflation in the future. 6

40 2017 Delegate Assembly Proposed Legislative Resolutions TAXATION RESOLUTION #7 BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR BONDING REQUESTS Name: Robert Moller, School Board Chair School District: New London Spicer Phone: Home (320) ; Office (320) ; Cell (320) address: This resolution is submitted with the support of the school board. Recommendation: Passage RESOLUTION STATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, THAT MSBA URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO ALLOW A SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT IS WITHIN A YEAR OF MAKING THE LAST BOND PAYMENTS ON A BUILDING PROJECT AND IS CONDUCTING A NEW BOND ELECTION THAT WILL NOT INCREASE THE TAXPAYER'S OVERALL TAX RATE FOR REPAYMENT OF BUILDING BONDS MAY PRINT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ON ITS BALLOT: "BY VOTING "YES" ON THIS BALLOT QUESTION, YOU ARE VOTING TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING TAX RATE FOR BUILDING BONDS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REDUCED OR ELIMINATED." BACKGROUND/RATIONALE BY SCHOOL DISTRICT The statement identified above would allow a more accurate explanation to convert an existing bond scheduled to expire than requiring the current language of BY VOTING YES ON THIS BALLOT QUESTION, YOU ARE VOTING FOR A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. This would give school districts, in this situation, an opportunity to more accurately explain the impact of the expiring bonds. No current policy. CURRENT POLICY CURRENT LAW Minn. Stat LEVY OR BOND REFERENDUM; BALLOT NOTICE Minn. Stat. 123B.70 SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION Minn. Stat. 123B.71 REVIEW AND COMMENT FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION 1

41 BACKGROUND BY MSBA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS When a new school building is constructed or when an existing facility is substantially remodeled, a district incurs a substantial financial obligation that must be met immediately. School districts issue bonds to obtain the funds necessary to pay the contractors. The district then pays back the bonds over a period of years with money raised from the debt service levy and any debt service aid received from the state. Because of the importance and cost of major construction projects, the Department of Education provides a review and comment on each major project. Any project that requires an expenditure of more than $2,000,000, except for certain deferred maintenance projects, must be submitted by the district to the commissioner for review and comment, unless the school district has an outstanding capital loan, in which case the project must be submitted for review and comment for any expenditure in excess of $500,000. The commissioner may give the project a positive, unfavorable, or negative review and comment. If the project receives a positive review and comment, the district may hold a referendum to authorize the sale of bonds; upon approval of a simple majority of the voters, the project may proceed. If the commissioner submits an unfavorable review and comment, the local school board must reconsider the project. If the local school board decides to continue with the project, the referendum to authorize the sale of bonds must receive the approval of at least 60 percent of the voters. If the commissioner submits a negative review and comment, the school board cannot proceed with the project. The findings of the commissioner s review and comment must be published in the legal newspaper of the district prior to a referendum on the construction project. Minnesota s local school districts have generally financed the construction of new school buildings through the sale of bonds. The bonds are repaid with revenue raised from the local district s property tax receipts. The total amount of building bonds issued by the district determines the yearly debt service that the district must pay; the amount of bonds issued is, of course, directly related to the district s building needs. The tax rate that the district levies to make its debt service payments depends both on the amount of debt and the size of the district s property tax base. The larger the debt and the smaller the property tax base, the greater the district s tax rate for debt service needs. RATIONALE School districts with major building needs usually fund those facility needs by exercising the authority available to municipalities under Minn. Stat. Chapter 475 and holding an election for the sale of bonds. More than half of the school districts have outstanding bonds and many larger school districts have more than one outstanding bond issue; the general obligation bonds are usually issued for 20 years, and the original bonds may be refinanced over time. The bond issues are a little trickier than operating referendum elections because school districts often design bond issue repayments around their existing bond issues and often have more than one set of bonds outstanding at the time a new bond issue is approved. The tax rate can also vary from year to year as the bond schedules are not necessarily flat over 20 years. House legislative analyst, Tim Strom, recommended this proposed language to reflect the spirit of this resolution. A school district that is within a year of making the last bond payments on a building project and is conducting a new bond election that will not increase the taxpayer's overall tax rate for repayment of building bonds may print the following statement on its ballot: 2

42 "BY VOTING "YES" ON THIS BALLOT QUESTION, YOU ARE VOTING TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING TAX RATE FOR BUILDING BONDS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REDUCED OR ELIMINATED." Currently Minn. Stat states that ballot language for a levy or general obligation bond referendum must include the following notice in boldface type: BY VOTING YES ON THIS BALLOT QUESTION, YOU ARE VOTING FOR A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. This resolution would allow school boards to more accurately portray that one general obligation bond is expiring and a new one will either be equal or less than the expiring levy. It would take away some of voter fear of a new tax appearing on their tax bill. PROS and CONS Pros: May increase voter support for the new G.O. bonds. The voters would still have to vote on the new bond, but they might have a better understanding of the financial impacts of the property tax amount. Ballot language represents a more fair and accurate portrayal of tax impact if a district finds itself in this situation. Cons: Difficult to structure because of the tax rate for the bond. It is pivotal to this resolution that the new G.O. bonds are at an equal to or lower tax rate than the previous bond. Unlike the operating referendum renewal, which is based on a per pupil dollar amount, this will be based on tax rate which fluctuates and is much harder to factor into the future. This might be more difficult for larger school districts to use since they may have multiple bond referendums and difficult for the school district and the public to understand which one is being renewed. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION This resolution would allow for a more fair and accurate portrayal of the tax impact. Traditionally, MSBA s Delegate Assembly has supported multiple methods of passing bonds. 3

43 2017 Delegate Assembly Proposed Legislative Resolutions TAXATION RESOLUTION #8 AUTHORITY FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION COSTS Name: Matthew Lemke - School Board Vice Chair School District: Fergus Falls #544 Phone: (218) address: This resolution is submitted by an individual school board member. Recommendation: Opposition RESOLUTION STATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, THAT MSBA URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO PERMIT SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO LEVY, WITHOUT A REFERENDUM, THE AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE CROSS-SUBSIDY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS WITH GENERAL EDUCATION FUNDS. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE BY SCHOOL DISTRICT 2105 MDE Cross-Subsidy by District Excel spreadsheet (Must enter Special Education, Cross-Subsidy Reports, 2015) 2015 Special Education Cross-Subsidy Report It is my belief that the State of Minnesota will not be able to fully fund special and general education by its own financial resources. The report by Minnesota Department of Education further shows that Special Education Expenses will continue to grow faster than Special Education Revenue through (Page 9 / Figure 3) The report also shows the problem of Special Education Cross-Subsidies continue to grow to its greatest amount by FY At that time, it is projected that the Cross-Subsidies will be around $719 million by (Page 8 / Figure 2). This has, and will continue to have, a negative impact on school districts across the state of Minnesota. By giving School Boards the ability to levy, without a referendum, the amount up to cross-subsidy of special education, it would allow some financial relief to school districts. The most important part about this resolution is that school districts could stop taking general education dollars away from the general classroom. 1

44 CURRENT POLICY Page 3, Urges the legislature to eliminate the cross-subsidy of special education programs by general education funds. The state shall assume the responsibility of supplying the additional revenue to fully fund the gap between the deficit in federal funding and the actual special education costs incurred by school districts. Page 4, Urges the legislature to treat special education costs similar to human services which are built into the state budget forecast. CURRENT LAW Minn. Stat. 125A.76 SPECIAL EDUCATION AID Minn. Stat. 125A.79 SPECIAL EDUCATION EXCESS COST AID Minn. Stat. 127A.065 CROSS-SUBSIDY REPORT BACKGROUND BY MSBA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Special Education is a Categorical General education revenue is the primary source of general operating funds for Minnesota s public schools (332 school districts and 169 charter schools for the school year). In addition to general education funding, school districts also receive state appropriations through categorical aids, which are funds designated for specific purposes such as special education. Elementary and Secondary Education Act The primary purpose of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), recently authorized as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), was to ensure that all children have fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and achieve at minimum proficiency on the State academic achievement standards and assessments. Federal Title I funding for this purpose is allocated primarily by formula grants to states, in turn to school districts based on the number of children from low income families. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 1975) brought large numbers of children who were previously kept at home or in institutions into the public school system. Neither the federal nor state government has ever paid the excess cost of providing mandated services to our special education children. State Special Education Mandate Local school districts are required by state law to provide appropriate and necessary special education services to children with disabilities from birth to age 21. Court rulings have established a student s constitutional right to an education regardless of their disabilities. The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) is responsible for general supervision of special education; school districts and charter schools are responsible for identification, assessing, and developing individual education programs (IEP) that meet the needs of the student. Children with disabilities are defined in statute to include children who have hearing impairment, visual disability, speech or language impairment, physical disability, mental, or other health impairment. The mandate for service does not include pupils with short-term or temporary physical or emotional disabilities. 2

45 Discrepancies Across the State in Special Education Costs Table 2 As we look at the average cross-subsidies for FY 2016 by school district size, based on the district-bydistrict and charter school data, we see the average adjusted net cross-subsidies per pupil unit are between $657 and $902 per pupil unit for all sizes of districts, except for the smallest non-metro districts, which have an average cross-subsidy of $595 per pupil unit, and the Minneapolis and St. Paul districts, which have an average cross-subsidy of $1,225 per pupil unit. In contrast, the average cross-subsidy of charter schools was $88. State and Federal Aid Falls Short of Real Costs (Figure 3 provided by MDE) For this resolution, it is beneficial to look at the cross-subsidy as a percentage of special education expenditures covered by state and federal funding formulas. According to MDE beginning in FY 2015, the state and federal funded portion of special education expenditures is expected to increase slightly to 69.9 percent by FY 2021, due to increases enacted in state special education funding in Recently, the portion of special education expenditures funded with state aid has gradually increased, while the portion funded with federal aid has gradually decreased. 3

46 Clearly, Figure 3 demonstrates the state and federal governments have not funded their special education obligations. The good news is the percentage of special education expenditures covered by state and federal funding formulas have slightly increased; however, school districts are still responsible for 29.1 percent of special education costs not covered. School Finance Litigation Provided by House Research Department - November 2016 Minnesota School Finance During the 1970s and early 1980s, 29 states, in addition to Minnesota, adopted legislation to reform the school finance system by enacting or improving equalization formulas, which provide more state aid to districts with low property wealth. In many states, including Minnesota, court challenges to the constitutionality of traditional school finance systems added to the pressure for reform. There have been three rounds of legal challenges to state aid formulas based on equalization principles, due largely to their effect of reducing state aid to districts with less perceived need (using property wealth as the measure of need). The second round of challenges, also made under the Fourteenth Amendment, proposed the standard of fiscal neutrality. Fiscal neutrality means that the quality of a child s education, measured by the amount expended for that education, cannot be permitted to vary according to the property wealth of his or her parents and their neighbors. The taxpayers in a property-poor district cannot be required to pay a higher tax rate than taxpayers in a property-rich district to attain the same quality of education for their children. This standard was first endorsed by the California Supreme Court under the federal and state equal protection clauses in its 1971 decision, which refused to dismiss the complaint in Serrano v. Priest. In short order, a number of other courts also adopted the standard of fiscal neutrality, including the Minnesota federal district court in its October 1971 decision upholding the validity of the claim in Van Dusartz v. Hatfield. This round of litigation came to an abrupt halt in March 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, reversed a lower court s decision in support of fiscal neutrality under the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1993, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed an earlier trial court decision and held the state s school finance system constitutionally permissible. The ruling in Skeen v. State of Minnesota stemmed from a lawsuit filed in 1988 by 52 outer-ring suburban and rural school districts representing 25 percent of the 4

47 state s K-12 enrollment. The suit claimed that Minnesota s school finance system was unconstitutional because the finance system was not uniform and school districts received disparate amounts of government aid. The plaintiff school districts challenged the constitutionality of the referendum and debt service levies that are based upon local property taxes and the training, experience, and supplemental revenues that were, at that time, fully equalized state aid components of the general education revenue program. The Minnesota Supreme Court declared the issues in the case to be whether the state s present system of education finance is sufficient to meet the state constitutional requirement that the legislature establish a general and uniform system of public schools and provide sufficient financing to secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state. The court ruled that education in Minnesota is a fundamental right and that the system of education finance in place then satisfied that right. The court found that all plaintiff [school] districts are provided with an adequate level of education which meets or exceeds the state s basic education requirements and... are given sufficient funding to meet their basic needs. The court used the term adequate or adequacy to mean the measure of need that must be met and not some minimal floor. The court s ruling establishes the minimum standard the state must meet in designing an education funding system that is constitutional. 1 RATIONALE MSBA has some concerns providing authority to local school boards to transfer special education crosssubsidy costs to the property tax. They include: First, as noted above, MSBA has two existing policies which specify that special education costs are state and federal mandates and should be paid for by state and federal government. They are: Urges the legislature to eliminate the cross-subsidy of special education programs by general education funds. The state shall assume the responsibility of supplying the additional revenue to fully fund the gap between the deficit in federal funding and the actual special education costs incurred by school districts Urges the legislature to treat special education costs similar to human services which are built into the state budget forecast. Second, special education is a constitutional right. The discrepancy in expenditures across school districts vary, are substantial, and range from $214 to $2,282 per pupil. Two-thirds of the school districts have a cross-subsidy of over $1000 per pupil. Add to this discrepancy are property values in varying school districts. This would be a substantial property tax increase for most school districts. Some school districts would not be able to raise their property taxes enough to pay for all special education costs due to obstacles out of their control. The cost would vary greatly from school district to school district due to the wide range of cross-subsidy costs, fewer commercial and industrial properties to spread the expense over the tax base, low property values, fewer homeowners, and the range of home values. 1 For further information on the Skeen decision, see Skeen vs. State of Minnesota, The School Finance Lawsuit, House Research Department, September

48 Third, a property tax levy for this purpose would have unintended consequences, which could result in an unhealthy and unnecessary conflict and dissention between general education students and families and special education students and families. Communities would watch their property taxes go up and potentially attach blame or ownership to the special education students and families. Most citizens would believe that funding special unfunded federal and state mandates would be the responsibility of the state and federal government, not the local property taxes. To provide a frame of reference, here are two varying examples: A. There are two school districts going to levy for their special education cross-subsidy cost of $880 per student. The $100,000 homeowner in school district A must pay $121 per year in property taxes, and the homeowner in school district B must pay $167 per year in property taxes. B. There are two school districts going to levy $2294 dollars per pupil on a $100,000 assessed home. The residential tax payer in Hopkins would pay $172 dollars per year, while the taxpayer in Albert Lea would pay $489 per year, and the taxpayer in Stewartville would pay $616 per year. (Calculations provided by Schools for Equity in Education (SEE).) Where there is no significant commercial and industrial property to broaden the tax base, taxpayers in the mostly residential school districts can pay two to three times more for the same amount of revenue for their schools as taxpayers in high wealth districts. Equalization is the mechanism to help equalize school levy costs across the state so that all school districts have the same ability to raise local property taxes or revenue for their students. It is a match of state aid to provide tax relief for citizens in low property wealth districts in which the equalization factor has not been adjusted to keep up with inflation. This levy would require a very high level of equalization which is paid by the State this money may be better spent on closing the special education cross-subsidy for all school districts equally. Transferring the responsibility to the local school district property tax payers would mean a child s education would vary greatly according to the property wealth of his/her parents and the neighbors. The property-poor school district cannot be asked to pay more than the tax payers in a property-rich school district. If passed, this method of funding would be challenged in court. PROS and CONS Pros: Special education is an unfunded mandate, which has not been seriously addressed by the state of Minnesota. With an appropriate funding source, funding special education cross-subsidy would do much to balance the budget of every school district in the state. Cons: Property taxes are an inequitable way to distribute money to the school for special education. Special education is a state and federal mandate and that is where the responsibility for funding should be. Property tax payers would pay different amounts for the same level of cross-subsidy depending on where they live and the property tax value of their home and their community. This inequity would produce Cadillac services in some districts and minimal services in other districts. 6

49 Although the percentage of special education expenditures covered by state and federal funding formulas have slightly increased, school districts are still responsible for 29.1 percent of special education costs not covered transferring this to a levy would be unfair and challenged in court. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION Special education cross-subsidy is the result of federal and state mandates; the state and federal government should pay for this short-fall, not property tax payers. Increasing the state and federal share of funding for special education is paramount and should be addressed. 7

50 2017 Delegate Assembly Proposed Legislative Resolutions TAXATION RESOLUTION #9 HOLD SCHOOL DISTRICTS HARMLESS FROM OVER VALUATIONS OF UTILITIES Name: Jeffrey Lund/Superintendent; Marshall County Central Schools School district: Marshall County Central Schools #441 (Includes: Kittson County, Stephen-Argyle, Thief River Falls, Red Lake County, Clearbrook, and other rural school districts from Clearbrook to Duluth along the Enbridge Pipeline. Phone: Home (218) Office (218) Cell (218) address: This resolution is submitted with the support of the school board. Recommendation: Passage RESOLUTION STATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, THAT MSBA URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION THAT WOULD PROVIDE STATE FUNDING FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT COSTS RELATED TO INACCURATE STATE-ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUES. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE BY SCHOOL DISTRICT Enbridge Energy, LLC has appealed a state-assessed property value and filed a lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Revenue for Assessment Years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and If the court rules in favor of Enbridge Energy, and/or a mediated settlement with the Department of Revenue is realized, resulting in a corresponding reduction of taxes for Enbridge Energy for these tax years, it will cause a significant financial burden for counties, schools, townships, watersheds, along the pipeline. While the Minnesota Department of Revenue determines the taxable valuation of pipelines and other property, such as railroad property and utility property, that valuation is subsequently included in the property tax base of local units of government and thus the pipeline owner pays local property taxes. These entities would possibly bear the financial burden of the repayment of substantially higher taxes paid by Enbridge if repayment is ordered. The assessments being appealed were assessed solely by the Department of Revenue estimate and not done by the local counties assessors. The Marshall County Central School Board hereby requests and supports legislation during the 2018 legislative session to provide state funding that will cover all possible abatement costs associated with this appeal of state assessed values for all entities and hold all affected entities financially harmless of any associated costs. Enbridge tax dispute could hit Minnesota counties with big bill, Grand Forks Herald, by Kevin Killough, Apr 15,

51 A tax dispute between Enbridge and the Minnesota Department of Revenue could end up costing counties in the state millions of dollars. The company filed an appeal with the state tax court, which claims the Department of Revenue inaccurately assessed its property, resulting in unfair increases for the tax years 2012 to Enbridge continued to make its tax payments while disputing the valuations throughout those years. If the courts find in favor of the company, the counties that received those tax dollars could be on the hook for whatever the court determines the company overpaid. The state department valuates pipelines, utilities and railroads, and the collections for those assessments are then given back to the counties where the property is located. Enbridge is one of the largest and in some cases the largest taxpayer in many counties, meaning the refunds could be a serious drain on local budgets. The counties are asking the state Legislature to step in and hold the counties harmless for what county officials say is the state's mistake. Big Chunk Eric Christensen, administrator for Kittson County, said the county's bill could be as high as $2.8 million. This figure is 34 percent of the county's total 2017 budget. "It's a big chunk of money to come up with," Christensen said, and it's not as bad as what other counties are facing. Two companion bills were introduced this legislative session that would make the state responsible for overpayments stemming from assessments it conducts. "We're hoping it does get passed," Christensen said. However, the House bill's sponsor, Debra Kiel, R-East Grand Forks, is not optimistic about that prospect. "This bill is probably not going anywhere," Kiel said. She said she introduced the bill knowing the refunds would be a significant hardship on the counties, but it's late in the session for the bill, which is in conference, to move to passage. More importantly, there's a lot of question over how much the state would have to pay back, which won't be known until the courts decide on the matter. That decision isn't expected until October. John Louis, media coordinator with the Department of Revenue, said in an the department proposed legislation that would improve the assessment processes and make it more transparent. Shannon Gustafson, communications supervisor with Enbridge's U.S. Liquids Pipelines & Projects division, said the company is appealing $18 million in tax payments. In 2012, she said, Enbridge proposed a 16 percent increase in property taxes, but the Department of Revenue assessed an increase of 24 percent, which Gustafson said the company found unreasonable. "For decades, we have paid our fair share in property taxes, but in 2012 the state of Minnesota departed from the established way it values our system, significantly increasing the value," Gustafson said in an . She said the company made repeated attempts since 2012 to resolve the issue with the Revenue Department, but those efforts didn't get the desired response. Louis denied the department changed its methods. "The Minnesota Department of Revenue has consistently applied the same methodology that is prescribed by rule since it was amended in 2007," he said. Gustafson said with future investments planned in the state, the company decided to appeal the valuations through the only means the state provides for such action. 2

52 Christensen notes other companies are also filing suit against the department, including at least one other pipeline company. If the courts decide the assessments were flawed and legislation holds the state responsible, it could hit the state's budgets hard in coming years. "The Legislature might open Pandora's Box for the state," he said. Investment Scott Peters, auditor-treasurer with Marshall County, said the county will have to pay back more than $1.4 million if the courts side with the company and the repayment obligations fall to the counties. He said he's watched this situation developing for a while. "They've been arguing for five years," he said. Enbridge is Marshall County's largest taxpayer, and their tax payment alone is a quarter of the county's total levy. He's hoping the state will find some way to resolve the dispute and maintain the positive relationship it has with the company. The company said it also wants to find a resolution to the dispute. "Enbridge has operated pipelines in Minnesota for more than 65 years, and we have long-standing relationships with the counties where our infrastructure is located," Gustafson said. Gustafson said the company has invested more than $1.5 billion in pipeline infrastructure in the state since 2008, where it has operated for more than 65 years. In 2011, the company paid $34 million in state property taxes. Peters said an upcoming project to replace the company's Line 3 is especially important to the county in terms of tax revenue, investment, and jobs it will create. Gustafson said the project will create $2.1 billion in investments throughout the state, and after completion, it will provide an estimated additional $19.5 million dollar in property taxes to the state. Minnesota Rural Education Association, (MREA) is aware of the potential impact to our counties and may consider assisting in this once there is a more combined effort from counties, townships, school districts, etc. The school district passed a similar resolution in March 2017 while Enbridge and the state were working through mediation, but no action was taken after mediation failed and a court date was set. Tax court is currently scheduled for October This covers the first few years of settlements. Enbridge noted that it will also be appealing the 2017 tax year as well at a public meeting. No current policy. CURRENT POLICY CURRENT LAW Minn. Stat PROCEEDINGS AND APPEALS; UTILITY OR RAILROAD VALUATIONS Minn. Stat REFUNDS OF OVERPAYMENT BACKGROUND BY MSBA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS State-assessed property is complicated, often spanning multiple jurisdictions. In Minnesota pipelines, utilities, and railroads have their own statute and rule that guides valuation. The Department of Revenue is required to assess these properties by valuing them at accurate market value. If utilities, railroads, and pipelines are valued below market other property taxpayers will pay more and if valued above market 3

53 other property taxpayers will pay less. To ensure consistent valuation practices the state determines value for the entire company and apportions that value down by the parcel and then informs the county of the value of assigned to parcels. Minnesota Rule 8100 ensures fair and consistent valuation. This rule was last updated in 2007 by the Department of Revenue. To put a rule into effect the process must follow the Minnesota s Administrative Procedures Act. The process includes: notice, request for comment, opportunity for a public hearing and review by an Administrative Law Judge. State-assessed property has a unique appeal process. These parcels are allowed by statute to appeal to the Minnesota Tax Court. Over the last five years, about 3,800 appeals have annually been filed with the Tax Court. Ninety-eight percent of these appeals dispute property tax assessments. There is a tension between a taxpayer and an assessor about the value of a property. The state has conducted 1,440 valuations since Of these valuations 1,393 valuation were not appealed and 47 valuations where appealed. Presently of the 47 appealed valuations 27 are still open, 7 are dismissed, 8 valuations have been settled and 5 have been tried in tax court and supreme court with none receiving final judgement since the rule change. If the state-assessed value is lowered by either the Tax Court or the Minnesota Supreme Court state law requires refunds to be paid by the jurisdiction that originally received the proceeds. Minnesota statutes requires these makeup taxes to be covered by the jurisdictions that originally received the proceeds but approximately 1/3 of any potential refund would be made by the state as a refund of the State General Tax. As a state-assessed case brought by the utilities or pipeline company the Department of Revenue provides: updates to counties when new information is available; bears the expense of any state-assessed litigation, including costs of the Attorney General, assessment experts and co-counsel; and explores options, including whether counties would like to value pipelines and utilities on their own. There have been legislative proposals to improve the administrative appeals process, making stateassessed property appeals more like other administrative tax appeals, allow more information to be shared with impacted counties during litigation, and require the state pay refunds for state assessed property appeals (HF 1628 Kiel/ SF 1630 Utke). Additional legislative options: Allow refunds from local governments over time, Allow refund to be in the form of a credit against future taxes, Other options could entail recommendations which allow local governments to place a percentage of the tax in escrow in case the valuation is lowered, Explore best practices from other states, Expand and add flexibility to the Judgement levy for school districts so they may levy the amount necessary to pay judgments from lawsuits. (Minn. Stat. 126C.43; 126C.47) For the Department of Revenue update, please refer to the end of this document. RATIONALE The Enbridge Energy Partners has appealed the Department of Revenue s valuation of their state-assessed property for assessment years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and The Department of Revenue expects the 2012, 2013, and 2014 cases will be tried the before Tax Court in October 2017, and the 2015 and

54 cases will likely go forward in October If the challenge is successful, local school districts hosting pipeline property owned by Enbridge Energy Partners would be required to refund the property tax overpayment, which in some cases could be significant relative to impacted school district. The state also levies a property tax on pipeline property, and the outcome of the case could also impact the state budget. This is a possible devastating conundrum for the school districts who have this pipeline running under their school districts It may impact 13 Minnesota counties through at least 15 cities, including Bemidji, Wilton, Bena, Cass Lake, Leonard, Deer River, Cohasset, Grand Rapids, Warba, Zemple, LaPrairie, Coleraine, Trail, Oklee, and Plummer. Enbridge contends that its property taxes spiked 24 percent in 2012 and far above what had been anticipated based on previous assessments. To a sense of the gulf between the Revenue Department (DOR) and Enbridge DOR valued of pipeline to be in 2015 at $7.3 billion the company computed value at $4.25 billion. The grand total of the assessment is $50 million. As an example, Clearwater County alone might have to refund as much as $7.2 million more than its $6.8 million of yearly total of property taxes tax collections. School districts are financially on the hook for rebates to private companies over a valuation made by the state. The state should financially cover their assessment mistakes not made by school districts. Although the Enbridge Energy Partners valuation challenge has been one of the most publicized recent challenges, Minnesota hosts several other pipelines that are also assessed by the state, and future valuation challenges of other systems are always a possibility. PROS and CONS Pros: This resolution would allow MSBA to advocate that the state should fund the school district portion of the property tax rebates for state-assessed pipeline and utility companies. School districts do not receive aid or have levy authority to rebate state-assessed tax collection. This resolution would allow us to advocate for HF 1628/ SF If Enbridge is successful in court, other companies will also challenge their state-assessments. Cons: This would cost the state additional funds. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION It is important to support this resolution and allow MSBA to work on this issue and find a legislative solution. 5

55 2017 Delegate Assembly Proposed Legislative Resolutions GOVERNANCE RESOLUTION #10 INCREASE OF SCHOOL BOARD FILING FEE School District: Duluth Public Schools ISD 709 Phone: (218) This resolution is submitted with the support of the school board. Recommendation: Opposition RESOLUTION STATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, THAT MSBA URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO INCREASE THE FILING FEE FOR SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH CITY FEE OF $ BACKGROUND/RATIONALE BY SCHOOL DISTRICT The filing fee for school board candidates is currently $2.00. This doesn t begin to cover the cost in staff time and printing the campaign materials. No current policy. CURRENT POLICY Minn. Stat. 205A.06 CANDIDATES, FILING. CURRENT LAW 1

56 BACKGROUND BY MSBA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS The following are statutory filing fees in Minnesota: Office Filing Fee President and Vice President $ 0 U.S. Senator $ 400 U.S. Representative $ 300 Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, State Auditor, Secretary of State $ 300 Judges $ 300 State Senator $ 100 State Representative $ 100 County Office $ 50 Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor $ 20 Charter City Candidates Varies Candidates in Cities of the First Class $ Candidates in Cities of the Second and Third Class $ 5 40 Candidates in Cities of the Fourth Class $ 2-15 Township Office $ 2 School Board Member $ 2 Filing fees are kept by the jurisdiction that takes the filing. There is no legal restriction on where those funds go. PROS and CONS Pros: May help offset administration costs. An increase may cause a potential candidate to reconsider filing and thus may alleviate a primary. Cons: An $18 increase in a school board filing fee will not adequately cover costs of the administration of the candidate filing. The district may not always be the official filing officer and then the county or other jurisdiction may keep the fee. May raise the bar and eliminate potential candidates from filing for candidacy. A filing fee increase does not guarantee a qualified candidate. May encourage a write-in campaign. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION The current school board candidate filing fee is obviously a low bar; however, without knowing the exact costs of a candidate filing, it is difficult to justify an increase in filing fees. 2

57 2017 Delegate Assembly Proposed Legislative Resolutions EDUCATION PROGRAMS RESOLUTION #11 ALIGN WORLD S BEST WORKFORCE (WBWF) AND EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT (ESSA) Name: MSBA Board of Directors This resolution is submitted with the support of the MSBA Board of Directors. Recommendation: Passage RESOLUTION STATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, THAT MSBA URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO ALIGN THE WORLD S BEST WORKFORCE (WBWF) AND THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT (ESSA) INTO ONE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM FOR THE STATE. No current policy. CURRENT POLICY CURRENT LAW Minn. Stat. 120B.11 SCHOOL DISTRICT PROCESS FOR REVIEWING CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT; STRIVING FOR THE WORLD'S BEST WORKFORCE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 As Amended EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT (ESSA) P.L BACKGROUND BY MSBA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS World s Best Workforce (WBWF) The World s Best Workforce legislation was passed in 2013 to ensure the state is making progress to increase student performance. The WBWF means striving to meet school readiness goals; have all thirdgrade students achieve grade-level literacy; closing achievement gap among all racial ethnic groups of students in between students living in poverty and students not living in poverty; have all students attain career and college readiness before graduating from high school; and have all students graduate high school. Full implementation was effective on July 1,

58 WBWF Accountability Plan The comprehensive strategic plan is intended to serve as a foundational document to align educational initiatives that serve to ensure reaching intended student outcomes from pre-kindergarten to post high school graduation. School boards, at a public meeting, shall adopt a comprehensive, long-term strategic plan to support and improve teaching and learning that is aligned with creating the World s Best Workforce. The plan is to be aligned to the World s Best Workforce and includes the following: Clearly defined student achievement goals and benchmarks. o All children are ready for school. o All third-graders can read at grade level. o All racial and economic achievement gaps between students are closed. o All students are ready for career and college. o All students graduate from high school. Process to evaluate each student s progress toward meeting the state and local academic standards. A system to review and evaluate the effectiveness of instruction and curriculum. Practices that integrate high-quality instruction, rigorous curriculum, instructional technology, and a collaborative professional culture that support teacher quality, performance and effectiveness. Evidence-based strategies for improving curriculum, instruction and student achievement. An annual budget for continuation of district plan implementation. One Plan Initiative In 2016, in an effort to move the WBWF to the next level, several changes were made in an attempt to reduce reporting requirements by school districts to the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) and integrate them into a single, One Plan accountability system. The reports removed were: Staff Development; Q Comp; Gifted and talented process for identification; Equitable teacher distribution; and School readiness program/voluntary pre-k. A detailed description of the major components of the federal ESSA law and the Minnesota State Plan is included in Appendix B. RATIONALE With the federal reauthorization of ESEA into a state ESSA plan and the existing WBWF accountability system for the previous three years, it may seem like school districts may be operating under two accountability systems. MSBA would support aligning the two systems, to the extent possible, to create one system which would alleviate confusion, duplication and competing interests. Two Accountability Systems The World s Best Workforce (WBWF) goals to are determined by the state; however, each district develops their local goals and strategies on how to achieve their goals. Their plans are published, and a summary sent to the MDE. With the adoption of WBWF, the intention was to consolidate and streamline reporting and accountability into One Plan. For the most part, school districts have embraced this system of accountability. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires the state to adopt long-term goals, indicators to measure school performance and a plan to identify schools for improvement. The Minnesota Plan has been submitted to the U. S. Department of Education for review and approval. 2

59 The WBWF was the primary state accountability plan in addition to NCLB now replaced by ESSA. The two systems are similar in many ways; yet different in some: Both utilize the MCA s to measure yearly student performance; Both require strategic plans based on goals; yet the goals are different. Both have added new systems and reporting when adopted; may be time to reduce some in WBWF. Alignment was the Goal As the State plan was developed, MDE held over 300 meetings to gather input. There was a common interest in aligning the two accountability systems from stakeholders and the commissioner. The Minnesota legislature agreed and passed legislation encouraging alignment and a single system. Sec. 53 Session Law Subd. 2 Alignment with World's Best Workforce Measures. The state plan must be consistent and aligned, to the extent practicable, with the performance accountability measures required under Minnesota Statutes, section 120B.11, subdivision 1a, to create a single accountability system for all public schools. Compare and Contrast of the Two Systems In an effort to compare the two accountability systems, we have a developed a chart with major components of WBWF on the left and major components of the proposed Minnesota ESSA plan in the middle with potential opportunities for further alignment on the right. As you can see by the chart below, there are many similarities and some opportunities for further alignment to create one accountability system for school districts. The highlighted areas are differences in the two plans and where further alignment may be possible. World s Best Work Force All districts Goals All children are ready to start kindergarten. All third-graders can read at grade level. MN Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) State Plan All schools and school districts Goals 90 percent of all students will be proficient in reading and math with no student group below 85 percent, by the year Potential Opportunity for Alignment Standardize kindergarten readiness statewide (MDE suggested) 3

60 All achievement gaps between students are closed. All students are ready for career and/or postsecondary education. All students graduate from high school. Performance Measures Student performance on Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs); High school graduation rates; and Career and college readiness. 90 percent of all Minnesota students will score proficient or higher in reading by third grade, with no student group below 85 percent, by the year percent of all Minnesota students will score proficient or higher in math, with no student group below 85 percent, by the year percent of English learners will be making progress in achieving English language proficiency by the year percent of all Minnesota high school students will graduate in four years, with no student group below 85 percent by percent of all Minnesota students will consistently attend school, with no student group below 90 percent by Accountability Indicators Academic achievement rating using math and reading tests (MCAs). Graduation rate: high schools (67 percent in any student group) Progress toward English language proficiency: Growth index to measure growth to proficiency Consistent attendance Align the ESSA goals with the World s Best Workforce goals. 90 percent proficient or higher with no student group below 85 percent. Maintain locally developed goals striving to meet this goal by Align 5 th indicator with Career and College Ready. Prepare to report and measure Common Couse Catalogue (MDE) Align ESSA goal to WBWF goals. Maintain locally developed goals striving to meet 90 percent goal by Align with WBWF College and Career Ready. Align the High School MCAs to College ready national tests. Align to 5 th indicator Align to WBWF 4

61 School Identification The commissioner must: 1) Identify those districts in any consecutive three-year period not making sufficient progress toward improving teaching and learning for all students. 2) In collaboration with the identified district, may require the district to use up to two percent of its basic general education revenue per fiscal year during the proximate three school years to implement commissionerspecified strategies and practices. 3) Report by January 25 of each year to the committees of the legislature the list of school districts that have not submitted their report to the commissioner 4) Provide a list of school districts not achieving their performance goals established in their plan. Schools for Support and Improvement The commissioner must identify effective strategies, practices, and use of resources by districts and school sites in striving for the world's best workforce. The commissioner must assist districts and sites throughout the state in implementing these effective School Identification A stage based decision making process will be used to identify low schools across all indicators. 1) Comprehensive Support and Improvement are the lowest 5% of Title 1 schools and will receive the most support from MN Regional Centers of Excellence (50 schools). 2) Targeted Support schools are the performing similarly to the lowest 5% of Title I schools or and consistently underperforming student group (117 schools). 3) Any high school with a graduation rate below 67 percent overall or for any student group will be identified for comprehensive support (200 schools). Schools for Support and Improvement For districts with schools identified under the accountability model, Minnesota s Regional Centers of Excellence partner with leadership teams to facilitate school improvement. 5 Seek resources to support the additional schools that will be identified under ESSA ( schools).

62 strategies, practices, and use of resources. To the extent possible MDE supports schools not make adequate progress on WBWF through the Regional Centers of Excellence. Commissioner may redirect 2% of district resources. Reporting 1) The school board shall publish a report in the local newspaper with the largest circulation in the district, by mail, or by electronic means on the district Web site. 2) The school board shall hold an annual public meeting to review, and revise where appropriate: student achievement goals, local assessment outcomes, plans, strategies, practices for improving curriculum instruction and cultural competency, and efforts to equitably distribute diverse, effective, experienced, and in-field teachers, to review district success in realizing the previously adopted student achievement goals and related benchmark. 3) The school board must transmit an electronic summary of its report to the commissioner in the form and manner the commissioner determines. Reporting Disaggregated test scores are submitted to MDE. Seek state funding to support schools identified and eliminate the 2% set aside. Eliminate some reporting requirements in WBWF and use dashboard as a potential public reporting tool. 6

63 Other Requirements Periodically survey affected constituencies in their native language, about their connection to and level of satisfaction with the school. District Advisory Committee is to make recommendations to the school board regarding academic standards, student achievement goals and measures, district assessments and about means to improve students equitable access to effective and diverse teachers. A Site Team must be established at the school level to develop and implement strategies and education effectiveness practices to improve instruction, curriculum, cultural competencies and student achievement at the school site. The site team must include an equal number of teachers and administrators and at least one parent. Timelines WBWF summary is due annually by December 15. The commissioner must identify those districts, in any consecutive three-year period, not making sufficient progress toward improving student achievement. This applies to all students, including English language learners. Timelines MCA scores are to be reported to the commissioner to be included in a dashboard, yet to be designed. Schools needing support will be identified every three years. In addition to not being reidentified, in order to exit support and improvement status, schools must meet criteria identified in the state plan. Eliminate this survey and substitute the Needs Assessment for schools that need improvement. Align responsibilities to satisfy ESSA. Align responsibilities to satisfy ESSA. Align timelines into one plan. 7

64 PROS and CONS Pros: The WBWF was the primary state accountability plan in addition to NCLB, now replaced by ESSA. The two systems are similar in many ways; yet different in some. This may be confusing for the public. (See Compare and Contrast Table beginning on Page 3) The legislature passed a law requiring alignment of ESSA State Plan with the WBWF to create a single accountability system for all public schools. One aligned accountability system will allow districts to focus, target resources, and build trust with local community. Because WBWF is in state law, we have the ability to make changes to better align with ESSA. Cons: The risk is, by aligning the two, one may become more restrictive than before. Some may prefer not to make any changes to the WBWF. Further alignment may be perceived as less local control. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION Currently we have a state (WBWF) and federal accountability plan (ESSA) based on annual standardized testing, goals setting, strategic plans and identifying and supporting schools that need improvement. To the extent possible, we should take this opportunity to align the two systems to reduce the requirements for school district in executing two systems. 8

65 2017 Delegate Assembly Proposed Legislative Resolutions EDUCATION PROGRAMS RESOLUTION #12 ENSURE CYBER-SECURITY AND PRIVACY OF STUDENT AND DISTRICT DATA Name: MSBA Board of Directors This resolution is submitted with the support of the MSBA Board of Directors Recommendation: Passage RESOLUTION STATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, THAT MSBA URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REVENUE AND FLEXIBILITY IN THE USE OF EXISTING K-12 FUNDING STREAMS FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO INVEST IN CYBER-SECURITY SOLUTIONS IN ORDER TO PROTECT STUDENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA COLLECTION AND STORAGE SYSTEMS. CURRENT LAW Minn. Stat DISCLOSURE OF BREACH IN SECURITY; NOTIFICATION AND INVESTIGATION REPORT REQUIRED Minn. Stat EDUCATION DATA CODED ELSEWHERE Minn. Stat EDUCATIONAL DATA Minn. Stat. 125B.022 CONTRACTS FOR COMPUTERS OR RELATED EQUIPMENT OR SERVICE Minn. Stat. 125B.05 STATE INFORMATION SYSTEM Minn. Stat. 125B.07 DEPARTMENT DUTIES Minn. Stat. 125B.09 DEPARTMENT POWERS AND DUTIES DELEGATED Minn. Stat. 125B.15 INTERNET ACCESS FOR STUDENTS Minn. Stat. 126C.10 GENERAL EDUCATION REVENUE, Subd. 13, 14, 15, and 16 Minn. Stat. 126C.44 SAFE SCHOOLS LEVY BACKGROUND BY MSBA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Schools are Responsible for this Data Public schools collect and produce a lot of information about students and staffs. School records can contain detailed information about a student s health and physical condition, aptitude scores, achievement and psychology tests, comments by school counselors and teachers, notes on interviews with parents and students, reports by social workers, delinquency reports, samples of students work, and much more. 1

66 The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) generally provides that information contained in a student s education records is private and parents largely control the access to that information. The exceptions in FERPA permit schools to disclose education data without a parent s consent under certain circumstances. FERPA also sets minimum data practices standards. States may make more stringent standards as long as no conflict with federal law arises. The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, chapter 13 regulates government practices. Minnesota Statutes adopt the provisions in FERPA and include some additional restrictions and requirements on sharing of education data. Following is a quick summary of these two requirements: Federal law. The federal law covers: the requirement that a school obtain the consent of the parent or student before disclosing records; rights of parents and students to inspect and review records rights of parents and students to request that a school correct inaccurate or misleading records; circumstances under which schools may disclose records without consent; schools ability to disclose directory information and summary data to anyone; third-party access to student data; and how the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and FERPA together govern access to the education records of students with disabilities. State law. The Minnesota state law covers: differences between federal and state law; state mandated reporting of educational data; and law enforcement information on violent students. Schools may disclose directory information to anyone without consent of the parent or eligible student. Local school districts decide what information they will designate as directory information. Directory information may include a student s name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, major field of study, participation in official school activates and sports, weight and height of athletic team members, dates of attendance, degrees and awards received, and most recent previous school attended. (20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(5)(A)) Sanctions for violating data practices law Under federal law, a school that fails to comply with FERPA can lose all federal education funding. A harmed individual may file a civil lawsuit alleging wrongdoing, including invasion of privacy, defamation, or libel, or may file a civil rights action. Under state law, a person who suffers damage because of a school district violating data practices law can bring a civil action against the school district for damages. If a violation is willful, the plaintiff (a person who brings a case against another in a court of law) can recover exemplary damages of up to $15,000 per violation plus costs and reasonable attorney fees. In additional to civil remedies, school personnel who willfully violate the state data practices law may be guilty of a misdemeanor and may be suspended without pay or dismissed. 2

67 Information Which Could be Obtained Through a Cyber-Attack: o Information in o Ethnic origin electronic mail o Electronic mail account address o First or last name, o Discipline records home address o Test results o Names of student or o Grades students family o Evaluations o Student or parent o Criminal records credit card account o Medical and dental number, insurance records account number, or o Mental and financial services psychological account number problems of the o Family income student or student s o Student s social family security number o Indication of student o Parent s social pregnancy security number o Height and weight and o Telephone number body mass index (land line and cell (BMI) number) o Social Security o Date of birth number o Place of birth o Biometric information (finger print/ eye scan) o Disabilities o Food purchased o Political affiliations o Religious affiliations o Text message o Documents o Student identifiers o Search activities o Photographs o Voice recordings o Survey responses o Behavioral assessments o Post-secondary information o Letters of recommendation o Awards and recognitions o Extra-curriculars o Co-curriculars o Scholarships RATIONALE Who Has Been Hacked? Could a School be Hacked? Nexgov September by Mark Van Scyoc The biggest hack on the federal government would pale against a breach of one department that houses tens of millions of Social Security numbers and other sensitive information but lacks even the most basic cyber defenses, according to a lawmaker. Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute this morning, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, sounded the alarm about security weaknesses at the Education Department, which manages over $1 trillion in loans. The biggest vulnerability that I see out there right now: the Department of Education, Chaffetz said. If they don t get their act together and their act together soon The Education Department came under scrutiny by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in February, when House Republicans questioned Education officials inability to protect a database with over 130 million Social Security numbers from cyberattacks. The actions of the department s then-chief information officer, Danny Harris, were also examined closely. Weeks after that hearing, Harris stepping down. I think [Harris] understood he wasn t doing his job and should never been in that position in the first place, Chaffetz said. 3

68 But there s more information at the Department of Education than there is at the Office of Personnel Management, he continued. And that is my biggest fear. I still sweat about what s happened at the Department of Education. Despite housing tens of millions of people s sensitive information and 180-plus databases, the agency doesn t even have the most basic of tools to protect them against breaches, Chaffetz said. If junior decides he wants to go to college... and he wants to get that Pell grant, he wants to get these other loans, guess what? Chaffetz said. He s putting mom s information in there, he s putting dad s information, he s putting his brother s information, he s putting dad s uncle s information credit union information, banking information, all of that is in one file and it s housed at the Department of Education and they do not have dual authentication and they do not have encryption. I think it s already happened; I have no proof of it, he continued. I ve been warning this bell for a long time. Chaffetz s remarks at AEI came in conjunction with the House oversight committee unveiling findings from a year-long investigation into the multiyear cyber spy campaign at U.S. Office of Personnel Management. The report concluded the hacks dated back to 2012 and were the result of poor security measures and inadequate action from OPM leadership, among other issues. The Securities and Exchange Commission has revealed it was the victim of hacking last year. And it says the hackers may have used some of the information they took for illicit stock trading. JIM ZARROLI, National Public Radio, September 21, 2017 The revelation was buried in the middle of a long-written statement on cybersecurity by SEC chairman Jay Clayton. He said the hackers were able to take advantage of a software vulnerability to break into what's known as the Electronic Data Gathering Analysis and Retrieval system or EDGAR. That's the big SEC database of annual reports and other filings put out by publicly traded companies. The agency first detected the hacking last year and quickly patched the software. Then last month, it learned that the hackers had been able to gain access to what it called nonpublic information. And they may have used the information to profit through illicit stock trading. The SEC didn't say what the information was, or which companies were involved, and there wasn't much more detail about what happened. But it did say the hacking didn't seem to pose any systemic threat to the financial markets or jeopardize the agency's operations. And it said the hackers didn't gain unauthorized access to personally identifiable information. But the SEC said the investigation into what happened is continuing, and it's cooperating with appropriate authorities. This isn't the first time the SEC has been hacked. The agency has revealed in the past that hackers were able to put fake documents into the EDGAR database, which caused fluctuations in stock prices that they were then able to profit from. Last night's revelation comes at a time of growing concern about cybersecurity in the nation's financial system. The credit monitoring firm Equifax recently revealed a computer breach that affected more than 140 million Americans. In his statement, SEC chairman Clayton said, the scope and severity of risks that cyber threats present have increased dramatically. And constant vigilance is required to protect against intrusions. Jim Zarroli, NPR News, New York. 4

69 Secretary of state: Russians targeted Minnesota elections Associated Press, by Matt Sepic Sep 22, 2017 Federal officials say hackers working for the Russian government targeted the Minnesota secretary of state's website leading up to the 2016 election but did not break in. Minnesota was one of 21 states notified Friday of attempted Russian hacking. Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon said in a statement the Department of Homeland Security told him that entities "acting at the behest of the Russian government" scanned IP addresses associated with his office for vulnerabilities. But Simon said there are robust security measures in place, and there was no attempt to breach the system. "We just always go in with the assumption that people of all kinds, be they foreign governments or other international actors or domestic actors are trying to find a way in," said Simon. "That's the assumption we start with, and that's the safest assumption." Simon said his office had previously identified the hackers' IP addresses scanning the system and blocked them. He said such scans happen daily and he has created a security team to protect the system and his office is rebuilding its website on a more secure platform. "No question in my mind, it's the number one potential threat to our election system, and we really have to continue to stay strong and try to stay one step ahead of the bad guys." IT officials plead poverty as cyber-treats loom by Kevin Featherly, Minnesota Lawyer October 27, 2017 The Dayton administration says hackers probe state government IT systems more than 3 million times a day trying to disrupt services, steal data or just make political hay. Sometimes they succeed. In June, for example, a state database containing addresses and passwords to state Administration Department servers got hacked, and material was published online in protest of the Philando Castile verdict. The FBI has apprehended a suspect in that case, according to MNIT officials. Meanwhile last December, the Judicial Branch s website was taken offline for 10 days because of a distributed denial-of-service attack from Asia and Canada that bombarded servers with millions of simultaneous queries, officials said. We also worry about nation-state actors, said Christopher Buse, MNIT s chief information security officer, in testimony before the Senate committee. Those are what you read about in the news with election-type hacking. Oddly, despite news in September that the federal Homeland Security Department listed Minnesota among 21 states where election systems were compromised by the Russians, Buse s aside was the only mention of elections. No further testimony was offered, and senators asked no questions. 5

70 Afterward, Baden suggested that may be because MNIT is responsible for IT covering the 78 executivebranch agencies, boards and commissions. Election systems are the Secretary of State s province. That is an elected, constitutional office not overseen by the governor. Buse told senators that Minnesota is way behind the cybersecurity curve. Historically, he said, the state spends about 2 percent of its overall information technology budget protecting data from hackers many of whom write customized malware specifically to crack into state systems. The federal government spends about 8 percent, he said. Industry often spends more than that, he said. There is simply not enough money put on the table to secure the environment as it exists today, Buse said. Dayton said he worries that lawmakers view cybersecurity as an abstraction one that competes for scarce dollars to fund their district s rundown bridges and wish-list snowmobile trails. Part of the abstraction might come from the fact that MNIT is something of a Frankenstein s monster. It launched in 2011 as the state s attempt to consolidate IT operations under a single chief information officer. Part of its mission is to reduce the number of data centers scattered around the state there used to be 49; there still are 22. MNIT also is in charge of normalizing IT management and procurement while protecting the whole system, holistically, from malicious attack. Most states achieved that years ago with upfront investment, Baden told senators. Minnesota did not. Yet the percentage it spends on cybersecurity as a part of its overall IT budget is slipping. It fell to 1.8 percent in 2016 and 1.6 percent this year, he said. Yet some agencies continue running their shops on archaic computer architecture and outmoded business software some of which is so old that their vendors no longer supply security patches, he said. Failure to shore up the state s Swiss-cheese IT security infrastructure eventually could become catastrophic, Buse indicated. South Carolina, for example, saw its Revenue Department hacked in 2012, resulting in the theft of 3.9 million online tax returns and the exposure of 387,000 credit and debit card numbers. The state was forced to purchase one year of free credit monitoring for affected citizens. If Minnesota ever got in that position, Buse said, it would probably require a special legislative session. We undoubtedly do not have the money to cover those kinds of losses, Buse said. Yet any damage done could be permanent. Local media reports in South Carolina suggest that taxpayers are at risk of fraud for life as a result of the 2012 breach. Speaking to reporters, Dayton said on Oct. 24 that he hopes the Legislature won t wait too long to make long-delayed, needed cyber-investments. We don t want to wait for a catastrophe to galvanize public concern, Dayton said. Know the Odds: The Cost of a Data Breach in June 20, 2017, By Larry Ponemon Coauthored by Wendi Whitmore We ve all heard that when it comes to experiencing a data breach, the question is not if it will happen, but when. You may be wondering about the actual odds of it happening to your organization. 6

71 Think about it this way: The chances of being struck by lightning this year are 1 in 960,000. When it comes to experiencing a data breach, according to the Ponemon Institute s 2017 Cost of Data Breach Study: Global Overview, the odds are as high as 1 in 4. Therefore, organizations must understand the probability of being attacked, how it affects them and, even more importantly, which factors can reduce or increase the impact and cost of a data breach. Rapid Response Drives Down the Cost of a Data Breach Sponsored by IBM Security and independently conducted by the Ponemon Institute, the 12th annual Cost of Data Breach Study is out. The findings revealed that the average total cost of a data breach is $3.62 million in 2017, a decrease of 10 percent over last year. Additionally, the global average cost per record for this year s report is $141, which represents a decrease of 11.4 percent over last year. Despite the reduction in cost, the average size of a data breach increased by 1.8 percent to 24,089 records. The influencers that impact the cost of a data breach are driven by the country and the IT initiatives underway. 7

72 The good news is that organizations can take measures to minimize cost and impact. The 2017 Cost of Data Breach Study found that having access to an internal or outsourced incident response team has been the top cost-reducing factor for three years running. An incident response team typically accelerates the time frame in which security events can be contained, which is a significant factor in reducing the overall cost of a breach. Listed below are five additional tips to help accelerate your organization s response to a breach. 1 Speed to respond is critical. The more quickly you can identify what s happened, what the attacker has access to, and how to contain and remove that access, the more successful you will be. 2 Set up retainers in advance. In the event of a breach, an experienced team of incident response experts can help you quickly identify and contain the attack, and minimize costly delays. 3 Access the data needed to answer investigative questions. Be prepared to provide responders with logs and tools to help them understand what happened. For example, what did the attackers access and what did they copy or remove from your environment? 4 Mitigate the attacker s access quickly. Plan with the IT staff in advance to understand how to be effective and efficient in a crisis. Consider the following: a) How to execute an enterprise wide password reset quickly; b) How to reset your service accounts; and c) How many of your service accounts have domain administrator credentials? 5 Establish an internal communications plan. If you have to shut down parts of your environment or reset thousands of users passwords, your employees will have a lot of questions. This speculation can have critical ramifications, so it s important to document a plan to ensure that your employees understand what they can and cannot share publicly. States by State Bill Information 2017 Security Breach Legislation (National Council of State Legislators) At least 30 states in 2017 introduced or considered security breach notification bills or resolutions. Security breach laws require that consumers or citizens be notified if their personal information is breached. Legislation in most of these states would amend existing security breach laws applicable to business, government or educational institutions. New Mexico in 2017 became the 48th state to have a breach law. Eight other states enacted security breach laws in Delaware and Maryland revised their breach laws in 2017, expanding the definition of "personal information" in cases of a breach, among other provisions. Virginia's new law requires companies to notify the attorney general and Department of Taxation if taxpayer ID numbers and withholding information is breached. North Dakota, Illinois and Washington passed laws relating to data breaches involving public entities. Wyoming requires the state superintendent and department of technology develop a data privacy and security plan that includes policies related to data breaches of student data. Only two states Alabama and South Dakota have no law requiring consumer notification of security breaches involving personal information 8

73 Arkansas H.B Status: Failed Ensures that personally identifiable information of students is protected. California A.B. 241 Status: Pending Relates to state and local breaches of privacy. Requires a state or local agency, if it was the source of a computer breach of information, to provide appropriate identity theft prevention and mitigation services at no cost to a person whose personal information, including Social Security number, driver license or identification card number. Connecticut H.B Status: Failed Concerns the timing of parental notification for a security breach of student data. Replaces the existing requirement that a Board of Education notify parents and guardians that a security breach of student data has occurred from 48 hours after such board receives notice of such security breach to two business days after such board receives such notice. Iowa H.B. 48 Status: Pending - Carryover Relates to student data collection by the department of education, school districts, and accredited nonpublic schools. Requires the department to create a data breach plan. Illinois H.B. 332 Status: Pending Amends the School Code to add provisions concerning student data privacy and data breaches. Amends the School Student Records Act, makes changes to the definition provisions, sets forth provisions allowing disclosure of student records to researchers at an accredited post-secondary educational institution or an organization conducting research if specified requirements are met, amends the Children's Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment Act to change the definition of child to mean a person under the age of eighteen. S.B Status: Pending Creates the Student Data Privacy Act, on and after Oct. 1, 2017, requires the school board of a school district to enter into a written contract with a contractor any time the school board shares or provides access to student information, student records, or student-generated content with that contractor, among other provisions, sets forth provisions concerning contract requirements, contractor and operator requirements and prohibitions, security breach procedures, and the establishment of a task force. Kentucky 9

74 S.B. 59 Status: Failed - Adjourned Includes user name, address, and security questions with answers in the definition of personal information involved in a data security breach of information held by state and local government agencies, allows a civil cause of action for actual damages, attorney's fees and court costs in Franklin Circuit Court against state and local government agencies who violate the investigation and notice procedures of KRS to , waiving sovereign immunity, expands the definition of breach. Massachusetts H.B Status: Pending Relates to amending certain statutes pertaining to data security breaches and calling for an investigation by a special commission on cybersecurity to assess the various threats across the commonwealth. S.B. 95 Status: Pending Protects biometric information under the security breach law. S.B.D 750 Status: Pending Relates to protecting biometric information under the security breach law. Maryland H.B. 704 Status: Failed - Adjourned Requires the State Board of Education to provide identity protection and credit monitoring services for at least five years for current and former students whose personal information has been compromised by a breach of a public school's or a local school system's computer network in violation of a specified provision of law. Michigan H.B Status: Pending - Carryover Relates to education. Creates the Student Data Privacy Act, provides penalties. S.B Status: Pending - Carryover Relates to education, creates the Student Data Privacy Act, provides penalties. Missouri S.B. 478 Status: Failed - Adjourned Relates to personal information data of students. North Dakota H.B Status: Enacted, Chap. 234 Relates to data breach response and remediation costs. Provides for payment from the risk management 10

75 fund for a data breach involving a state entity. Approves the purchase of insurance to cover data breach response and remediation costs. Provides that each state entity shall contribute a share of costs. Washington H.B Status: Enacted, Chap. 306 Concerns state agency collection, use, and retention of biometric identifiers. Prohibits an agency from obtaining a biometric identifier without first providing notice and obtaining the individual's consent. Provides that the use and storage of biometric identifiers obtained by an agency must comply with all other applicable state and federal laws and regulations, including the health insurance portability and accountability act (HIPAA), the family educational rights and privacy act (FERPA), regulations regarding data breach notifications and individual privacy protections, and any policies or standards published by the office of the chief information officer. H.J.R 4202 Status: Pending - Carryover Amends the state Constitution to permit appropriations from the budget stabilization account in certain cases where there has been a breach of information technology systems. Wyoming H.B. 8 Status: Enacted, Chap. 14 Amends requirements of the state data security plan to ensure privacy of collected student data. Requires policies for the collection, access, privacy, security and use of student data by school districts. Requires policies for the collection, access, privacy, security and use of student data. Provides for employee training, provides for response to data security incidents, including breach notification and mitigation procedures, provides for retention and verified destruction of student data. Present Education Funding Formulas Cyber Security? Operating Capital Revenue Minn. Stat. 126C.10, 13 Operating capital revenue replaced two former capital formulas known as equipment revenue and facilities revenue and moved the revenue stream to each district s general fund. Operating capital revenue must be reserved and used for equipment and facility needs. A school board may spend other general fund money for operating capital expenses, but general fund money provided by the operating capital revenue component must be reserved and spent only for eligible equipment and facility s needs. Minn. Stat. 136C.10 Subd. 14 Uses of Total Operating Capital Aid states, (18) to purchase or lease computers and related hardware, software, and annual licensing fees, copying machines, telecommunications equipment, and other non-instructional equipment; (19) to purchase or lease assistive technology or equipment for instructional programs. Operating capital revenue ranges from $188 to $243 per adjusted pupil unit per district and totals $209.6 million statewide. Safe Schools Levy Minn. Stat. 126C.44 The safe schools levy, formerly known as the crime levy, allows school districts to levy for costs associated with student and staff safety issues. Eligible expenses include: 11

76 police liaison services; drug abuse prevention programs (DARE); gang resistance education training; school security; the other crime prevention and student and staff safety measures; counseling, social working, and chemical dependency services provided by licensed professionals; improving school climate; and collocating and collaborating with mental health professionals who are not district employees or contractors For fiscal years 2009 to 2014, the safe schools levy equals $30 per pupil unit and a school district that is a member of an intermediate school district may levy up to an additional $10 per pupil unit for safe schools activities at intermediate school districts. For fiscal year 2015 and later, the safe schools levy equals $36 per pupil (this is a $4 per pupil increase in actual funding and the other $2 per pupil change adjusts for the lower pupil weights). In FY2017, the $36 per pupil levy equaled $34,519,000 in property tax. $3,128,000 in levy authority was awarded to intermediate school districts. Both the capital facilities revenue and safe schools funding needs to be clarified to cover cyber-security programs to ensure that they cover school districts cyber-security needs. PROS and CONS Pros: School districts store significant data on students, families, and employees, and they are attractive targets for information hackers. This is a very timely resolution since even our country s most secure agencies are being hacked. School districts need cyber-security teams, so information systems become and remain protected. These teams should monitor electronic traffic and at least weekly back up all school systems in case the school district information is compromised. Flexibility with the safe school revenue and the operating capital funding would allow schools to start crafting and expanding their internal electronic environments. Parents, students and staff need safe and secure electronic systems. Cons: This protection and ongoing upkeep requires a significant monetary investment. Enhanced cyber-security systems will not guarantee 100% protection. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION It is critical to support this resolution legislation which would invest new money toward cyber-security. School districts will need additional new money to build cyber-safety into every student and school data system. Additional flexibility within current funding programs would jumpstart school districts cyber initiatives. 12

77 2017 Delegate Assembly Proposed Legislative Resolutions EDUCATION PROGRAMS RESOLUTION #13 INSPECT AND COPY PUBLIC DATA FOR A FEE School district: Mahtomedi School District This resolution is submitted with the support of the school board. Recommendation: Passage RESOLUTION STATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, THAT MSBA URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO ALLOW A SCHOOL DISTRICT/SCHOOL BOARD TO ASSESS A REASONABLE CHARGE OR REQUIRE THE REQUESTING PERSON TO PAY A REASONABLE FEE TO INSPECT DATA. BACKGROUND BY SCHOOL DISTRICT In order to improve the usage of taxpayer dollars and still provide opportunities for public data. Upon request to a responsible authority or designee, a person shall be permitted to inspect and copy public government data at reasonable times and place, and upon request, shall be informed of the data s meaning. If a person requesting access for the purpose of inspection, the responsible authority may assess a charge or require the requesting person to pay a reasonable fee to inspect data. CURRENT LAW Minn. Stat DEFINITIONS, Subd. 19 Minn. Stat ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT DATA, Subd. 3 (a), (b),(c) Minn. Stat PENALTIES BACKGROUND BY MSBA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Schools Are Responsible for This Data Public schools collect and produce a lot of information about students and staffs. School records can contain information detailed information about a student s health and physical condition, aptitude scores, achievement and psychology tests, comments by school counselors and teachers, note on interviews with parents and students, reports by social workers, delinquency reports, samples of students work, and much more. Some records may contain a student s race, religion, or national origin. The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) generally provides that information contained in a students education records are private and parents largely control the access to that 1

78 information. The exceptions in FERPA permit schools to disclose private educational data without a parent s consent under certain circumstances. FERPA also sets a minimum data practices standard that states may make more stringent as long as no conflict with federal law arises. The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, chapter 13 regulates government practices involving data in Minnesota. Minnesota Statutes adopt the provisions in FERPA and include some additional restrictions and requirements on sharing of educational data. Here is a quick summary of these two requirements: Federal law. The federal law covers: the requirement that a school obtain the consent of the parent or student before disclosing records; rights of parents and students to inspect and review records rights of parents and students to request that a school correct inaccurate or misleading records; circumstances under which schools may disclose records without consent; schools ability to disclose directory information and summary data to anyone; third-party access to student data; and how the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and FERPA together govern access to the education records of students with disabilities. Schools that fail to comply with FERPA can lose federal funding. (20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(3) and 1232g(f). State law. The Minnesota State law covers: differences between federal and state law; state mandated reporting of educational data; and law enforcement information on violent students. Schools may disclose directory information to anyone without consent of the parent or eligible student. Local school districts decide what information they will designate as directory information. Directory information may include a student s name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, major field of study, participation in official school activates and sports, weight and height of athletic team members, dates of attendance, degrees and awards received, and most recent previous school attended. (20 U.S.C. 1232g(a)(5)(A)) Summary data Under Minnesota law summary data is public data, and the statistical records and reports derived from data on individuals in which individuals are not identified and from which individuals identities cannot be determined are public data. State law requires school districts to report educational data without consent chemical abuse child maltreatment firearm injuries and burns juveniles health records law violation immunization records tuberculosis screenings unlawful firearms 2

79 Sanctions for violating data practices law Under federal law a school that fails to comply with Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) can lose all federal education funding. A harmed individual may file a civil lawsuit alleging wrongdoing, including invasion of privacy, defamation, or libel, or may file a civil rights action. Under state law, a person who suffers damage as a result of school district violating data practices law can bring a civil action against the school district for damages. If a violation is willful, the plaintiff (a person who brings a case against another in a court of law) can recover exemplary damages of up to $15,000 per violation plus costs and reasonable attorney fees. In additional to civil remedies, school personnel who willfully violate the state data practices law may be guilty of a misdemeanor and may be suspended without pay or dismissed. Rights to Inspect Public Data Although the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) requires that the responsible authority inform the requestor of the data s meaning, the responsible authority is not required to interpret the data for the requestor. It simply means that any abbreviations, acronyms, lingo, or other words that are not commonly used or understood must be explained. Minn. Stat , Subd. 3(b). Minn. Stat , Subd. 3(a). DPO Minn. Stat , Subd. 3(c). Minn. R See Section VIII-B-1 Requestor is not the subject of the data. See DPO, Copy Costs for the Public. Minn. Stat , Subd. 3(c). (c) The responsible authority or designee shall provide copies of public data upon request. If a person requests copies or electronic transmittal of the data to the person, the responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for An inspection is typically (but is not limited to) a visual inspection of paper or similar types of government data. Inspections do not require printing copies, unless printing a copy is the only way to provide access. When a person requests access for the purpose of inspection, the responsible authority may not impose a charge or otherwise require the payment of a fee to inspect data. The responsible authority or designee must provide copies of public data upon request. If a requestor wants copies (including data transmitted electronically), he or she may be required to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, copying, and/or electronically transmitting the data. An individual may not be charged for costs related to separating public from not public data. However, if the request is for 100 or fewer pages of black and white, letter or legal-size paper, and the requestor is not the subject of the data, the maximum allowable charge is 25 cents for each page copied (or 50 cents for two-sided copies). Actual costs may not be charged for requests of this size. making, certifying, and electronically transmitting 3

80 the copies of the data or the data, but may not charge for separating public from not public data. However, if 100 or fewer pages of black and white, letter or legal-size paper copies are requested, actual costs shall not be used, and instead, the responsible authority may charge no more than 25 cents for each page copied. If the responsible authority or designee is not able to provide copies at the time a request is made, copies shall be supplied as soon as reasonably possible. [emphasis added] DPO DPO Time limits Minn. Stat , Subd. 2(a). Minn. Stat , Subd. 3(c). DPO DPO Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington, 499 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). Minn. Stat , Subd. 3. DPO Requests for government data must be responded to in an appropriate and prompt manner. If the responsible authority or designee is unable to provide copies at the time a request is made, they must be supplied as soon as reasonably possible. Because there is no specific number of days for responding to all requests for public data, the responsible authority has some discretion, based on the scope of the request and the time it will take to respond. There is a specific time limit when the request comes from the data subject. If an immediate response is not possible, the responsible authority must respond within 10 business days of the request. d. Denying access Minn. Stat , Subd. 3(f). DPO DPO DPO Upon the request of the person denied access, the responsible authority or designee must certify the denial (citing the basis for the denial) in writing. If a request for data is denied or redacted based on the data classification, the responsible authority or designee must inform the requesting person of the determination either orally at the time of the request, or in writing as soon as possible, providing the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law on which the determination is based. 4

81 Unreasonable or harassing requests While there is no limit on the volume of government data that may be requested or provided, a responsible authority has no duty to provide information if a request is unreasonable or made for the purpose of harassing school staff. DPO DPO DPO Minn. Stat Large requests take up significant staff time and other school resources. It is particularly frustrating when the requestor never comes in to inspect the requested data, or only wants a few pages copied out of a larger compilation of materials. Webster v. Hennepin County et al., A (Minn. Ct. App., April 10, 2017). While school officials may feel that many such requests are unreasonable or harassing, a request will need to be extremely unreasonable before the obligation to respond is relieved. Unfortunately, the MGDPA does not provide any specific guidance on what is an unreasonable request. In advisory opinions, the commissioner of the Department of Administration has indicated that a request must be extremely burdensome or harassing before a government entity may decline a request to access public data. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has determined that the MGDPA does not allow government entities to require a requestor to narrow their search because the amount of responsive data is too large, or too time consuming to produce. However, the court did note the MGDPA does not prevent a government entity from working with a requestor to better understand or narrow the scope of a request. But if the requestor refuses to narrow their search, this would not allow the government entity to refuse access to public government data. f. Summary data Occasionally, a school district is asked for data that is generally understood to be data on individuals (e.g., school employees), but does not specifically identify any one person. Minn. Stat , Subd. 19. Minn. Stat , Subd. 7. Minn. R Summary data is defined as statistical records and reports derived from data on individuals, but in which individuals are not identified and from which neither their identities nor any other characteristic that could uniquely identify an individual is ascertainable. Unless it is classified differently under a temporary classification, 5

82 Upon written request, the responsible authority must prepare summary data from private or confidential data. Within 10 days of the request, the responsible authority must inform the requestor of the estimated cost to prepare the summary data. The requestor is responsible for the cost of preparing the summary data. Minn. Stat , Subd. 7. Minn. R , Subp. 5. DPO another state statute, or federal law, summary data is public. The responsible authority may delegate the preparation of summary data to: An administrative officer responsible for any central repository of summary data. A person outside the school district if the purpose is set forth in writing, the person agrees not to disclose information, and the entity reasonably determines that the access will not compromise private or confidential data. When providing summary data in response to a request, the school district should provide as much detailed information as possible without revealing the identity of the data subjects. g. Redacting and separating data Minn. Stat , Subd. 1. Minn. Stat Subd. 3 (c) DPO DPO Minn. Stat , Subd. 3(a). DPO DPO Minn. Stat , Subd. 3(c). Minn. Stat , Subd. 3. Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of As a general rule, a school district is not required to create data in response to requests. However, in instances where documents, files, records, or the like contain both public data and not public data, an individual may typically request and obtain access to the public data within. The responsible authority must remove any not public data prior to release. One way to accomplish this is to redact any not public data. Redaction involves removing or blocking out protected data. Rather than altering any original records, the responsible authority provides a redacted copy of the requested data. If the requestor only wants to inspect data, the school district may not charge for any copies made responding to the request. Another way is to separate the public and not public data. Separating data is distinguishable from creating new data. When separating data, the responsible authority or designee must remove data that is not accessible. As with redacting, the school district may not charge for any costs incurred separating the data. In some instances, public data and not public data 6

83 Bloomington, 499 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). DPO DPO may be so intertwined that it is impossible to separate the data by classification. In rare situations, school districts may decline access if the public data is rendered useless after it is separated out. This type of denial should be used a last resort in extreme situations. Historical Information Since the earliest organized societies, with taxation, disputes, and so on, records of some sort have been needed. In ancient Babylon records were kept in cuneiform writing on clay tablets. In the Inca empire of South America, which did not have writing, records were kept via an elaborate form of knots in cords, quipu, whose meaning has been lost. In Western Europe in the Late Middle Ages public records included census records as well as records of birth, death, and marriage; an example is the 1086 Domesday Book of William the Conqueror. The details of royal marriage agreements, which were effectively international treaties, were also recorded. The United Kingdom Public Record Office Act, which formalized record-keeping by setting up the Public Record Office, was passed in United States Information The Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552) (FOIA) is one of the most important legal tools citizens and reporters have for furthering government transparency in the United States. And yet, history shows that empowering the citizenry as a check on the government has worried many members of the executive branch, including presidents of both parties, and reminds us that citizens must be constantly vigilant to protect hard-earned transparency rights. FOIA was originally championed by Democratic Congressman John Moss from California in 1955 after a series of proposals during the Cold War led to a steep a rise in government secrecy. Moss found support from newspaper editors and journalists, but he could not find Republican co-sponsors until years later. During the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, he received support from a young Representative named Donald Rumsfeld. Federal Law Access to U.S. national public records is guided by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Requests for access to records pursuant to FOIA may be refused by federal agencies if information requested is subject to exemption, or some information may be redacted. In addition to the national FOIA, all states have some form of FOI legislation. There are many degrees of accessibility to public records between states, with some making it easy to request and receive documents, and others with many exemptions and restricted categories of documents. One state that is fairly responsive to public records requests is New York, which utilizes the Committee on Open Government to assist citizens with their requests. A state that is restrictive in how they respond to public records requests is Pennsylvania, where the law currently presumes that all documents are exempt from disclosure, unless they can be proven otherwise. The California Public Records Act (California Government Code ) covers the arrest and booking records of inmates in the State of California jails and prisons, which are not covered by First Amendment rights (freedom of speech and of the press). Public access to arrest and booking records is a critical safeguard of liberty. 7

84 Information Policy Analysis Division at the Minnesota Department of Administration IPAD General Information The Commissioner of Administration may issue opinions on questions related to the Data Practices Act. Minn. Stat Effect of Opinion. Opinions issued by the Commissioner are not binding on the government entity whose data is the subject of the opinion, although it must be given deference by a court or other tribunal in a proceeding involving the data. Minn. Stat , Subd. 2. Written numbered and published opinions issued by the Attorney General take precedence over an opinion issued by the Commissioner. Minn. Stat , Subd. 1(c). Finally, a government entity or person that acts in conformity with a written opinion issued by the Commissioner is not liable for compensatory or exemplary damages or awards of attorneys fees in actions for violations arising under Minn. Stat , or , or for a penalty under Minn. Stat Minn. Stat , Subd. 2. However, a court can award attorney s fees to a prevailing plaintiff who has brought an action to compel compliance with the Data Practices Act under Minn. Stat , if the court finds that the government entity that is the defendant in the action did not act in conformity with an opinion by the Commissioner that (a) involved that entity and (b) is directly related to the cause of action being litigated. Minn. Stat , Subd. 4(c). 2. Who May Request an Opinion? Upon request of a government entity, the Commissioner may give a written opinion on any question relating to public access to government data, rights of subjects of data or classification of data under the Data Practices Act, or any other Minnesota statute governing data practices. Additionally, the Commissioner may give a written opinion upon request from any person who disagrees with a determination regarding data practices made by a government entity regarding the person s rights as a subject of government data or right to have access to government data. In such a situation, however, the government entity must be provided a reasonable opportunity to explain the reasons for its decision regarding the data. Minn. Stat , 8 Subd Commissioner s Responsibilities Upon Receipt of a Request for an Opinion. Upon receipt of a request, if the Commissioner determines that no opinion will be issued, the Commissioner must give the requesting party notice of the decision not to issue the opinion within five business days of receipt of the request. If notice is not given within this five-day period, the Commissioner must issue a written opinion within twenty days of receipt of the request, unless the deadline is extended by the Commissioner for an additional thirty-day period for good cause and upon notice to the requesting party. The notice of extension must state the reason for extending the deadline. Fees. School districts may charge reasonable fees for providing copies of governmental data or education records. If a person requests copies, the responsible authority may require the requestor to pay the actual costs of making, certifying, and electronically transmitting the copies. Minn. Stat , Subd, 4(c). In addition, a school district may charge a fee for remote access to data where either the data or the access is enhanced at the request of the person seeking access. Minn. Stat , Subd. 3(b). The Commissioner of Administration has distinguished between the costs allowable for providing copies of data when the requestor is the subject of the data from the costs allowable for providing copies of data when the requestor is not the subject of the data. See Advisory Op. No (July 29, 2003); Advisory Op. No (Dec. 6, 1995). The difference is that if the data requestor is not the subject of the data, the government entity may include in its charge -- in addition to the universal charge for the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies -- the actual costs of searching for and retrieving the data. (Note: Government entities no longer may charge for compiling data). A search and retrieval charge may not be included in a fee to a requestor when he or she is the subject of the data. Consequently, when the requestor is the data subject, only the actual costs of making and certifying the data maybe charged. Minn. Stat , Subd. 4. Guidelines for government entities for establishing the appropriate charge 8

85 are found in Minn. Stat (when requestor is not the subject of the data) and in Minn. Stat (when requestor is the subject of the data). Fees may not be charged to a requesting person who is only seeking to inspect the documents. This includes the costs of employee time to retrieve and compile the documents for inspection. See Demers v. City of Minneapolis, 468 N.W.2d 71 (Minn. 1991); 34 CFR The district also may not charge for separating public from not public data. See Advisory Op. No (Aug. 7, 2002); Advisory Op. No (Aug. 7, 2002); Advisory Op. No (Jan. 31, 1997). However, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that entire documents may be withheld under the Data Practices Act when public and nonpublic data are so inextricably intertwined that segregation of the material would impose a significant financial burden and leave the remaining part of the document with little informational value. See Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington, 499 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). See also Advisory Op. No (Jan. 16, 1996); Advisory Op. No (Jan. 16, 2003); Advisory Op. No (Apr. 23, 2003) (same for videotapes); Advisory Op. No (Mar. 11, 2004). A school district may not charge a fee to search for or retrieve education records of a student, including such records of a child with a disability. Minn. Stat , Subd. 5; 34 C.F.R (b). In addition, a school district may only charge a fee for copies of records of a student with a disability if doing so would not impair or effectively prevent the parent or eligible student from exercising their right to inspect and review those records. Minn. Stat , Subd. 5; 34 C.F.R (a). In determining the amount of a fee, Minn. R recommends that the responsible authority consider: 1. The cost of materials, including paper, used to provide the copies; 2. The cost of the labor required to prepare the copies; 3. Any schedule of standard copying charges established by the district in its normal course of operations; 4. Any special costs necessary to produce copies from machine based record keeping systems such as computers or microfilm systems; and 5. Mailing costs. Based upon a 1994 decision by the Commissioner of Administration, the costs for supplying copies of documents may not include the costs of copying machines or maintenance unless those costs are directly attributable to the costs of providing the copies. Similarly, the Commissioner has opined that a flat charge per copy may be charged only if the flat fee represents the actual costs of providing the data. See Advisory Op. No (Nov. 18, 1999). During the 2005 legislative session, a maximum fee was established in certain cases. More specifically, if 100 or fewer pages of black and white, legal or letter size paper copies are requested, actual costs shall not be used, and instead, the responsible authority may charge no more than 25 cents for each page copied. Minn. Stat , Subd. 3(c). See also, Advisory Op. No (Nov. 16, 2010). a. If two requests for public data from the same individual resulted in the copying of less than100 pages for each request, the government entity may not charge more than $.25 per page. If one request was for more than 100 pages, the government entity may charge its actual, reasonable cost to provide copies of those data. Advisory Op. No (January 12, 2007), but See Advisory Op. No ($3900 was not a reasonable charge for approximately 135 pages of data). 1. Minn. Stat also provides that when a request for public government data involves the requestor receiving copies of data that have commercial value and are a substantial and discrete portion of or an entire formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, 9

86 technique, process, data base or system developed with a significant expenditure of public funds by the school district, the responsible authority may charge a reasonable fee for the information in addition to the costs of making and certifying the copies. Any fee charged must be clearly demonstrated by the district to relate to the actual development costs of the information. The responsible authority, upon the request of any person, shall provide sufficient documentation to explain and justify the fee being charged. b. Method of Preparation. Methods of preparing summary data include, but are not limited to, removing from a set of data, a file, a record-keeping system or a report of an incident all unique personal identifiers. The removing of all unique personal identifiers includes, but is not limited to, blocking out personal identifiers on paper records, tearing off or cutting out the portions of paper records that contain personal identifiers or programming computers in such a way that printed, terminal or other forms of output do not contain personal identifiers. Minn. R , Subp. 6. The Commissioner has opined that a school district may not release, as public data, multiple sets of summary data regarding students with common student identifiers that would allow for correlation or cross- referencing the data, if the school district believes that such correlation could lead to the identification of individual students. See Advisory Op. No (April 29, 1998). The Commissioner also stated that a school district may not release, as public data, a copy of a teacher s grade book (with student names removed), which includes multiple elements of summary data correlated as to each student, if the school district believes that such correlation could lead to the identification of individual students. See id. c. Procedure for Collecting Summary Data. Minn. R , Subp. 4 provides that within 10 days of the receipt of a written request for the preparation of summary data, the responsible authority must inform the requester of the estimated costs and either: a. Provide the summary data requested; or b. Provide a written time schedule including reasons for delay; or c. Provide access to the requester to the private or confidential data for the purpose of the d. requestor s preparation of summary data, subject to section G below; or e. Provide a written statement of reasons why the responsible authority has determined such access f. would compromise private or confidential data. d. Costs. The costs of preparing the summary data must be borne by the requester. Prior to preparing or supplying the summary data, the requester should be provided an estimate of the costs and the responsible authority should collect any funds necessary to reimburse the district for its expenses. The Commissioner of Administration has opined that the district may request prepayment of any costs associated with preparing summary data. See Advisory Op. No (July 3, 1997). In determining its costs, the district should consider the cost of materials, including paper, used to provide the copies, the cost of labor required to prepare the copies, any schedule of standard copying charges established by the district in its normal course of operations, any special costs necessary to produce copies from machine-based record-keeping systems such as computers or microfilm systems, and mailing costs if any. If the summary data requires no preparation other than copying, only reasonable copying costs should be charged. The rules also provide that the responsible authority shall consider the reasonable value to the district of the material prepared and reduce the costs to the requester where appropriate. Minn. R ; Minn. R , Subp

87 IPAD (Information Policy Analysis Division) Decisions - Cannot Charge Advisory Opinion May 13, 2003; McLeod County This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below. Facts and Procedural History: On April 21, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Simcha Plisner, an attorney, on behalf of his clients, Mr. And Mrs. X. In his letter, Mr. Plisner asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his clients' rights to gain access to certain data maintained by McLeod County. In response to Mr. Plisner's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Nan Crary, McLeod County Administrator. The purposes of this letter, dated April 29, 2003, were to inform her of Mr. Plisner's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the County's position. On May 6, 2003, IPAD received a response from Michael Junge, McLeod County Attorney. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. According to Mr. Plisner, Mr. and Mrs. X asked for copies of data about them maintained by McLeod County Human Services. The data relate to a child protection matter. Mr. Plisner stated that they received 113 pages, for which they were charged $ According to Mr. Junge, the County provided 108 pages at a charge of $1.00 per page, plus an audiotape at a charge of $5.00, for a total copy charge of $ Mr. Junge provided to the Commissioner a copy of the McLeod County Fee Schedule. According to that schedule, the County charges $5.00 for a copy of an audiotape of child protection assessments and interviews, and $1.00 per page for a copy of Typed Reports of same. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Junge described the procedure the County follows to provide copies of child protection data to individuals. The original must first be copied. The employee must then read the entire document and delete any information which would identify the reporter, and then the item must be copied a second time, which is then provided to the person making the request. The $1.00 charge has been approved by the McLeod County Board of Commissioners to allow for the two copies of each page, plus the time of the employee for editing the document to delete nondisclosable information. Issue: In his request for an opinion, Mr. Plisner asked the Commissioner to address the following issue: Is McLeod County's charge of $ for copies of 113 pages of private data allowable under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13? Discussion: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, when a data subject requests copies of government data, the government entity may charge only the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. According to Minnesota Rules, part , subpart 5, which governs access to private data, [t]he responsible authority may charge the data subject a reasonable fee for providing copies of private data. In determining the amount of the reasonable fee, the responsible authority shall be guided by the criteria set out in part concerning access to public data. 11

88 According to Mr. Junge, the County includes in its copy cost a charge for employee time to redact confidential data, or other data not accessible to Mr. and Mrs. X. However, according to section 13.04, the County may charge only its actual cost to produce the copies. Chapter 13 does not contain any provision allowing an entity to recover the cost of separating data about the requestor from private or confidential data about other data subjects. Therefore, to the extent that the County's copy charge includes costs for anything beyond the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies, its charges are not allowable. Government entities may charge their actual costs to produce copies of data on individuals, if they are able to document that those charges are permitted under Chapter 13. Furthermore, the County has not otherwise accounted for its charges and how they relate to the language in section The fact that the County Board of Commissioners approved the fee schedule is not, in itself, sufficient to justify that the fees charged are allowable under section The County ought to be able to make available specific, accurate data that document the basis of its photocopy charges. The County produced no data that support its copy fee, and thus, did not meet the burden here of establishing its actual and reasonable cost to produce copies of government data. The Commissioner has an additional comment. The fee schedule refers to copies of Typed Reports of child protection assessments and interviews. It is not clear if the County also maintains handwritten notes, or other data about the Xs, and if so, what it charges for copies of such data. According to the information provided, Mr. and Mrs. X asked for copies of all data the County maintains about them, not limited to typed reports. If the County maintains additional data about the Xs, it should make those data available to them without delay. Opinion: Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Plisner is as follows: McLeod County is not in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, with respect to its charges of $1.00 per page for photocopies, and $5.00 for an audiotape, because (1) it includes in its fee the cost to redact data, and (2) it did not meet the burden of justifying its charges by establishing those are its actual and reasonable costs to provide copies of data to a data subject. Signed: Brian J. Lamb Commissioner Dated: May 13, 2003 IPAD - Cannot Charge for Redaction Advisory Opinion August 14, 1996; Douglas County This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below. Facts and Procedural History: For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data 12

89 classified as not public, are available for public access. On June 28, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from S. In that letter, S asked whether the fees charged by Douglas County for copies of data about S are allowable under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. S enclosed copies of related correspondence. In response to S's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to F. Michael Marxen, Director, Douglas County Social Services. The purposes of this letter, dated July 2, 1996, were to inform Mr. Marxen of S's request, and to ask him or the County's attorney to provide information or support for its position. On July 15, 1996, PIPA received a response from Mr. Marxen. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows. According to a document signed by S, dated November 22, 1995, Douglas County Social Services charged $.50 per page, and $10.00 per hour preparation fee for copies of data in its files. In a letter to S dated February 16, 1996, a County social worker stated that the charges for copies of S's file were $.50 per page, and $40.46 per hour preparation fee. (Based on other information provided by the County, the Commissioner assumes that the preparation fee quoted to S ought to have been $40.45.) In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Marxen wrote: As the material requested by [S] contained names of reporters of maltreatment, minors, and information that is protected by other law, the file had to be reviewed by the social worker and protected information deleted from that file. The hourly cost of social worker time, as determined by the Department of Human Service, is $40.45 per hour (See attachment A). In summary, the review of the file and time spent deleting and compiling the file and information is consistent with [Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 3.] The entire contents of Attachment A are reproduced below. Douglas County STAFF PROVIDED SERVICE AVERAGE COST COMPARISON JAN-DEC 1994 County Statewide Metro Co Non-Metro Co Average Average Average Average Staff County Staff County Staff County Staff Cost/Hour Cost/Hour Cost/Hour Cost/Hour Issue: In S's request for an opinion, S asked the Commissioner to address the following issue: Are Douglas County's copying charges of $.50 per page, and $40.46 per hour preparation fee, allowable under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Part ? Discussion: S requested copies of data of which S is the subject. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, provides, in relevant part: [t]he responsible authority shall provide copies of the private or public data upon request by the individual subject of the data. The responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. Minnesota Rules Part provides: [t]he responsible authority may charge the data subject a reasonable fee for providing copies of private data. 13

90 In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Marxen asserted that because S's file contained data not accessible to S, i.e., the name of a reporter of child maltreatment, the file had to be reviewed by the social worker and protected information deleted from that file. The hourly cost of social worker time, as determined by the Department of Human Service, is $40.45 per hour.... (Mr. Marxen is correct that the name of a reporter of child maltreatment is confidential. See Section , subdivision 11, and Section 13.02, subdivision 3.) Mr. Marxen asserted that the County's copying fees are consistent with Section 13.03, subdivision 3. Section governs access to public data by a member of the public, and does provide that a person requesting copies may be required... to pay the actual costs of searching for and retrieving government data, including the cost of employee time, and for making, certifying, compiling, and electronically transmitting the copies of the data or the data, but may not charge for separating public from not public data. However, S's rights to gain access to data about S are governed by Section Section 13.04, read in concert with the applicable Rule, allows a government entity to recover its actual costs of making photocopies, which may include the cost of labor to make the copies. Section 13.04, subdivision 3, does not allow a government entity to assess a fee for employee time to separate confidential data from public and private data. The information provided by Mr. Marxen was not sufficiently detailed to enable the Commissioner to determine if the County's actual photocopying charges are $.50 per page. However, the County is in error by assessing a $40.46 per hour charge for social worker time to delete confidential data from S's file. Further, the County provided no explanation for the reason its preparation fee quadrupled in price between November 1995, and February Mr. Marxen did not provide a reference to the source of the information, i.e., employee cost, contained in Attachment A. Therefore, from the information provided by the County, the County has not demonstrated that its photocopy fees are allowable under Section 13.04, subdivision 3. Opinion: Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by S is as follows: Douglas County has not demonstrated that copying charges of $.50 per page, and $40.46 per hour preparation fee, represent its actual costs to provide S with copies of County data about S. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Part , the County may not charge S for an employee's time to delete confidential data, or other data not accessible to S, from S's file. Signed: Elaine S. Hansen Commissioner Dated: August 14, 1996 RATIONALE Preparing information for public inspection comes at a cost for local school districts. Reviewing Minnesota Statutes, Rules, IPAD decisions makes clear that school districts are allowed to charge a reasonable fee for copying. Included in the reasonable fee definition in Minn. Rules are costs for materials, cost of the labor required to make the copies, any schedule of standard copying charges, special costs to put it into alternate formats, and mailing costs. Actual cost term is used in IPAD decisions, and this term s definition includes cost of media, mailing costs, employee time to prepare copies, costs of reproductions, and employee time to search for and retrieve data for copying. Neither the term 14

91 reasonable fee nor actual cost includes the big costs school districts face in searching, retrieval, and redaction costs to comply with requests for inspecting public data. This means that every inspection by the public which is free based on federal, state, and case law involves costs associated with preparing for the inspection that will continue to be burdensome on school districts. Minnesota could follow the lead of other states who approach public information costs these ways: Hawaii sets charges by rule; Illinois limits searches to a specific number of megabytes; Massachusetts allow only four hours of employee time on the request before charging a fee; and North Dakota allows for a fee charge once $25 of cost has been reached. PROS and CONS Pros: Inspection of public data costs local governments money. School districts are hit hard by free inspection because of the number of redactions that must be done because we deal with students under the age of 18. This change may reduce the number of requests school districts have to address. This change would allow school districts to invest more time and revenue into their core mission educating students. Cons: This resolution will be challenging to enact. Significant time and energy would be required to pass this type of legislation. Would the press be allowed to inspect public data for free? If fees are assessed for taxpayers to access government data does it become a burden to people of limited means? School district operations will be less transparent to the public. Will taxpayers continue to support school referendum elections if they cannot independently review school district public data? The resolution highlights the constant tension relating to the State s Data Practices Act for a local government and their constituents. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION Providing free inspection of school district data comes at a cost. School districts often must redact private data (example: individual student performance) from public data. School districts should be able to charge for staff time to redact and make copies of materials necessary for the public to inspection public data. 15

92 2017 Delegate Assembly Proposed Legislative Resolutions EDUCATION PROGRAMS RESOLUTION #14 ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT TO TEST NEWCOMERS/SLIFE STUDENTS Name: Todd Sesker, superintendent and Richard Olson, board member and Delegate Assembly member School district: Faribault Public Schools Phone: Todd (507) Richard (952) address: or This resolution is submitted with the support of the school board. Recommendation: Opposition RESOLUTION STATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, THAT MSBA URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT THAT WE TEST NEWCOMER (SLIFE) STUDENTS UNTIL THEY HAVE MADE APPROPRIATE GROWTH ACCORDING TO THE WIDA-ACCESS PLACEMENT TESTING DATA. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE BY SCHOOL DISTRICT The state requires we test newcomers after one year, but we believe that learning a new language takes five-seven years. We do not believe that newcomer/slife students should be tested with a published or public state test for at least five years. It does not make any sense to do this because it only makes a school district that has newcomers/slife students enrolled, look bad. There is no upside. Also, we believe it reflects poorly with regards to the entire state of Minnesota, when including these results. Testing newcomer/slife students that do not know the language is a very poor statistical measure when grouping all students together. CURRENT POLICY Page 6, Urges the legislature to support the seven-year funding timeframe for English Learner (EL) students based on the need for acquisition of academic proficiency. (2015) Minn. Stat. 124D.59 DEFINITIONS Minn. Stat. 124D.60 RIGHTS OF PARENTS CURRENT LAW 1

93 Minn. Stat. 124D.61 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PROGRAMS Minn. Stat. 124D.65 ENGLISH LEARNER (EL) PROGRAMS AID Minn. Stat. 120B.36 SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 (P. L ) EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT (ESSA) BACKGROUND BY MSBA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Over the last several decades, English Learner (EL) have been among the fastest growing populations in our schools. During this time, in Minnesota the EL population has increased more than 300 percent. ELs comprise a highly diverse group of students who bring with them valuable cultural and linguistic assets, including their home languages. Yet despite these many assets, ELs face significant opportunity and academic achievement gaps compared to their non-el peers. For example, in graduating class of 2016, the high school graduation rate for ELs was just 63.2 percent, compared to 82.2 percent for all students. Students with Limited Interrupted Formal Education (SLIFE) Note: Minnesota Statute does not distinguish between English Language (EL) and Students with Limited Interrupted Formal Education (SLIFE). They are considered an important subset of English Learners. The Minnesota Learning English for Academic Proficiency and Success (LEAPS) Act defines SLIFE as an English Learner with interrupted formal education who: 1. Comes from a home where the language usually spoken is other than English, or who usually speaks a language other than English. 2. Enters school in the United States after grade Has at least two years less schooling than the English Learner s peers. 4. Functions at least two years below expected grade level in reading and mathematics. 5. May be preliterate in the English Learner s native language. Access for English Learner (EL) In addition to the requirements for math, reading and science standards, federal law also requires states to create standards for English language proficiency. Minnesota uses the ACCESS for EL to meet this requirement. The ACCESS tests are developed by WIDA a consortium comprising 35 states and several territories. The ACCESS tests are off-the-shelf assessments that meet and exceeds federal requirements for the monitoring and reporting ELs progress toward English language proficiency. About Access for ELLS 2.0 ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 is a secure large-scale English language proficiency assessment administered to Kindergarten through 12th grade students who have been identified as English language learners (ELLs). It is given annually in WIDA Consortium member states to monitor students' progress in acquiring academic English. ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 is only available to Consortium member states. ACCESS for ELLs 2.0 is aligned with the WIDA English Language Development Standards and assesses each of the four language domains of Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing. The assessment is available in both paper-based and online formats for Grades 1-12, while Kindergarten and Alternate ACCESS for ELLs are paper-based tests. 2

94 Consortium Members Minnesota is a member of the WIDA Consortium as shown in BLUE. The striped states have adopted the WIDA English Language Development Standards but do not participate in other Consortium activities. GREEN listings indicate the adoption of the WIDA Spanish Language Development Standards. Click on a WIDA member or use the drop-down menu (above) for more information. ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS IN ESSA AND STATE PLAN LONG-TERM GOALS ESSA requires that states establish (for all students and for each student subgroup) ambitious statedetermined long-term goals, measurements of interim progress, and performance indicators. The law defines subgroups as economically disadvantaged students, students from major ethnic and racial groups, children with disabilities, and ELs. In response to the ESSA requirement, Minnesota s long-term goal regarding EL is: 85 percent of EL will be making progress in achieving English language proficiency by the year ACADEMIC CONTENT ASSESSMENT ESSA requires that states reading or language arts, math, and science assessments provide for the inclusion of ELs, who must be assessed in a valid and reliable manner and provided appropriate accommodations (including, to the extent practicable, assessments in the language and form most likely to yield accurate information on what those students know and can do in the content area assessed) until they have attained English proficiency as measured through the English proficiency assessments administered in the state. 3

95 In response to the ESSA testing requirements, the proposed Minnesota plan requires: Annual testing using the MCAs, which are aligned to MN standards in reading and math Beginning in 2018, Minnesota will provide translations of academic words in Spanish, Somali and Hmong throughout the math and science MCAs. Adopts this progression to introduce EL s to the testing system and full integration over three years: o for a student s first year of enrollment in the school, exclude his or her assessment results from the school s accountability determinations; o for the student s second year of enrollment, include a measure of his or her academic growth in those determinations; and o for the student s third year and each succeeding year, include a measure of his or her proficiency in those determinations. Under Title I, ESSA requires the state to ensure that its LEAs provide for an annual assessment of the English proficiency of all ELs in their schools. These assessments must align with the state s English proficiency standards. Separately, the new law permits states to exclude, from one administration of reading or language arts assessments (but not math), recently arrived English Learners, who are defined as ELs who have been enrolled in US schools for less than 12 months. In response to the ESSA requirements, the Minnesota plan requires: To annually test the progress toward English language proficiency of English Learners in the domains of reading, writing and speaking. ESSA adds a new requirement that states establish and implement, after consultation with LEAs representing the geographic diversity of the state, standardized English Learner entrance and exit procedures, which must include a requirement that all students who might be ELs are assessed for that status within 30 days of enrollment in a school within the state. In response to the ESSA requirements, the Minnesota plan: Standardizes statewide EL entry and exit criteria or procedures. MN is a part of the WIDA Consortium and utilizes the WIDA standards framework and assessments. In school year , all states in the WIDA consortium, including Minnesota, administered a new version of ACCESS 1.0 to 2.0. All school districts must use the same ACCESS proficiency score and follow the same process for using additional criteria such as teacher judgement when determining whether or not to exit a student from EL services. Beginning in June of 2017, Minnesota Language Survey (MNLS) will be translated into Spanish, Somali, Hmong, Karen, Arabic, Vietnamese, Oromo, Russian, Amharic, Chinese, Khmer, Lao, French, Swahili, Nepali, Telugu, Karenni and Hindi. This survey will be used to identify potential English Learners. A manual was created to be used by every Minnesota public school district and charter schools which provides step-by-step procedures for identification, entrance and exit decisions. RATIONALE The newly authorized federal law ESSA moves the EL student group from Title III to Title I for accountability purposes. This move elevates the time, attention and resources that schools will need in order to achieve academic proficiency. In response to ESSA and a EL stakeholders group, these students will continue to take both the MCA and the ACCESS because they test two different things. The MCA tests mastery of MN standards the ACCESS tests measure progress in acquiring academic English. The MN plan (in consultation with EL stakeholders) does require new to country students take the reading MCAs as a baseline score the first year, but the score is not included in the statewide 4

96 accountability system. The second year only the growth score is used. The third year ELs are fully incorporated in the statewide accountability system. Another option was to not have ELs take the reading test the first year but be fully in the system the second year. New to country students always had to and must continue to take the math MCA the first year. PROS and CONS Pros: Many believe English Learner students are over tested. Newly arrived English Learners are not proficient in English and yet are required to take the MCAs before they have been engaged in school for a full year. Academic language takes 5-7 years for SLIFE students and consequently some believe should not be assessed on academic standards until they are proficient in English. Cons: ESSA has moved EL students from Title III to Title I which has elevated them into the core accountability system across the country and state. ESSA requires states and districts to ensure that all students including English Learners graduate from high school career and college ready. To measure progress against that goal and maintain the focus on equity and excellence for all, the federal and state law maintain the requirement that the state shall administer to all students statewide academic assessments with accommodations. Minnesota would be in violation of federal law and risk losing federal funding if ELs were not tested for academic proficiency and English proficiency. EL stakeholders were involved in the decision-making process for the EL students. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION If passed, this resolution would be in conflict with the federal law. Federal law requires states to provide for an annual assessment of English language proficiency, and annual academic assessment all ELs. MSBA would need to propose a resolution at the federal level with National School Boards Association (NSBA) to amend ESSA as reauthorized. 5

97 2017 Delegate Assembly Proposed Legislative Resolutions EDUCATION PROGRAMS RESOLUTION #15 PETITION FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT CONSOLIDATION Name: Kevin Donovan, school board treasurer and MSBA past president and board member School district: Mahtomedi School District This resolution is submitted with the support of the school board. Recommendation: Passage RESOLUTION STATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, THAT MSBA URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO ELIMINATE THE VOTER- INITIATED OPTION ALLOWING 50 VOTERS TO PROPOSE CONSOLIDATION OF TWO OR MORE DISTRICTS. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE BY SCHOOL DISTRICT No current policy. Minn. Stat. 123A.48 CONSOLIDATION CURRENT POLICY CURRENT LAW New language would look like this: Minn. Stat. 123A.48, Subd. 2. Resolution. (a) Upon a resolution of a board in the area proposed for consolidation or upon receipt of a petition therefor executed by 25 percent of the voters resident in the area proposed for consolidation or by 50 such voters, whichever is less, the county auditor of the county which contains the greatest land area of the proposed new district shall prepare a plat. The resolution or petition must show the approximate area proposed for consolidation. Proposed Law Suggested Language: Minn. Stat. 123A.48 CONSOLIDATION New language would look like this: Minn. Stat. 123A.48, Subd. 2. Resolution. (a) Upon a resolution of a board in the area proposed for consolidation or upon receipt of a petition therefor executed by 25 percent of the voters resident in the area proposed for consolidation or by 50 such voters, whichever is less, the county auditor of the county which contains the greatest land area of the proposed new district shall prepare a plat. The resolution or petition must show the approximate area proposed for consolidation. 1

98 BACKGROUND BY MSBA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS The other two options for proposing consolidation, a resolution by one of the school boards or a petition by 25 percent of the area s resident voters, should remain in place. History The bulk of consolidation in Minnesota in the last 35 years; 175 combined or dissolved in the 1990s. School Districts Reorganizations from : New District Number New District Name Old District(s) Statute Hopkins 274 Hopkins 275 Golden Valley Consolidation Mountain Iron-Buhl 694 Buhl 703 Mountain Iron Consolidation Clinton-Graceville 58 Clinton 60 Graceville Consolidation 113 Walker-Hackensack-Akeley 119 Walker 301 Akeley Consolidation 239 Rushford-Peterson 232 Peterson 234 Rushford Consolidation Lake Crystal-Wellcome Memorial 70 Lake Crystal Cooperation and 78 Garden City Combination 2358 Tri-County 353 Karlstad 444 Strandquist Consolidation 2359 Hallock-Humboldt 351 Hallock 352 Humboldt-St. Vincent Consolidation 2527 Norman County West 524 Halstad 525 Hendrum Consolidation 2609 Win-E-Mac 597 Erskine 603 McIntosh Consolidation 2711 Mesabi East 691 Aurora Cooperation and 2835 Janesville-Waldorf-Pemberton 2125 Triton 2174 Pine River-Backus 2365 G.F.W LeSueur-Henderson 2448 Martin County West 2534 Bird Island-Olivia-Lake Lillian Biwabik 830 Janesville 913 Waldorf-Pemberton 201 Claremont 202 Dodge Center 205 West Concord 114 Backus 117 Pine River 649 Fairfax 733 Gibbon 735 Winthrop 393 LeSueur 734 Henderson 456 Sherburn 457 Trimont 459 Welcome 646 Bird Island 653 Olivia Combination Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Consolidation Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination 2

99 New District Number New District Name Old District(s) Statute Granada-Huntley-East Chain 453 East Chain 460 Granada-Huntley Consolidation 2580 East Central 566 Askov Cooperation and 576 Sandstone Combination 2805 Zumbrota-Mazeppa 2134 United South Central 2135 Maple River 2137 Kingsland 2142 St. Louis County 2143 Waterville-Elysian-Morristown 2144 Chisago Lakes 2148 Blue Earth Area 2149 Minnewaska 2153 Madison-Marietta-Nassau 2154 Eveleth-Gilbert 2155 Wadena-Deer Creek 2159 Buffalo Lake-Hector 2163 Warren-Alvarado Zumbrota 809 Mazeppa 217 Bricelyn 222 Kiester 224 Wells 2654 Freeborn 72 Mapleton 79 Amboy-Good Thunder 223 Minnesota Lake 236 Wykoff 237 Spring Valley 692 Babbitt 708 Tower-Soudan 710 St. Louis County 395 Waterville-Elysian 657 Morristown 140 Taylor Falls 141 Chisago Lakes 225 Winnebago 240 Blue Earth 612 Glenwood 614 Starbuck 615 Villard 376 Marietta-Nassau 377 Madison 697 Eveleth 699 Gilbert 543 Deer Creek 819 Wadena 647 Buffalo Lake 651 Hector 436 Alvarado 446 Warren 408-Verdi dissolved and attached to 404-Lake Benton and 583-Pipestone Dilworth-Glyndon-Felton 145 Glyndon 147 Dilworth 2165 Hinckley-Finlayson 570 Finlayson 573 Hinckley 2167 Lakeview 412 Cottonwood 896 Wood Lake 2168 N.R.H.E.G. 762 Ellendale-Geneva 827 New Richland 2169 Murray County Central 504 Slayton 918 Chandler-Lake Wilson Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Consolidation Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Consolidation Consolidation Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Consolidation Consolidation Dissolution and Attachment Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Consolidation 3

100 New District Number New District Name Old District(s) Statute Staples-Motley 483 Motley 793 Staples Consolidation 2171 Kittson Central 354 Kennedy 2359 Hallock-Humboldt Consolidation 2172 Kenyon-Wanamingo 254 Kenyon Cooperation and 258 Wanamingo Combination 2176 Warren-Alvarado-Oslo 442 Alvarado Consolidation 2180 M.C.C.R.A.Y Granite Falls-Clarkfield 2184 Luverne 2190 Yellow Medicine East 2198 Fillmore Central 2215 Norman County East 2310 Sibley East 2311 Clearbrook-Gonvick 2342 West Central Area 2364 Belgrade-Brooten-Elrosa 2396 A.C.G.C Greenbush-Middle River 2689 Pipestone Area 2753 Long Prairie-Grey Eagle 2754 Cedar Mountain 2758 Redwood Falls-Morton 2759 Eagle Valley 2163 Warren-Alvarado 126 Clara City 127 Maynard 346 Raymond 892 Clarkfield 894 Granite Falls 669 Luverne 670 Magnolia Echo 2183 Granite Falls-Clarkfield 228 Harmony 233 Preston-Fountain 523 Gary 526 Twin Valley 731 Arlington 732 Gaylord 158 Gonvick 161 Clearbrook 209 Kensington 244 Hoffman 262 Barrett 263 Elbow Lake 736 Belgrade-Elrosa 737 Brooten 341 Atwater 461 Cosmos 464 Grove City 440 Middle River 678 Greenbush 582 Jasper 583 Pipestone 791 Grey Eagle 792 Long Prairie 636 Morgan 650 Franklin 637 Redwood Falls 652 Morton 789 Clarissa 790 Eagle Bend Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Consolidation Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Consolidation Consolidation Cooperation and Combination Cooperation and Combination Consolidation Consolidation Consolidation 4

101 New District Number New District Name Old District(s) Statute Howard Lake-Waverly-Winsted 427 Winsted Cooperation and 880 Howard Lake Combination 2752 Fairmont Area 451 Ceylon Cooperation and 454 Fairmont Combination 128 Milan 2853 Lac qui Parle Valley 784 Appleton 2153 Madison-Marietta- Consolidation Nassau 2854 Ada-Borup 521 Ada 522 Borup Consolidation 2856 Stephen-Argyle Central 437 Argyle 443 Stephen Consolidation 2859 Glencoe-Silver Lake 2860 Blue Earth Area 2862 Jackson County Central 2884 Red Rock Central 2886 Glenville-Emmons 2887 McLeod West 2888 Clinton-Graceville-Beardsley 2889 Lake Park-Audubon 2890 Renville County West 2895 Jackson County Central 422 Glencoe 425 Silver Lake Delavan 219 Elmore 2148 Blue Earth Area 324 Jackson 325 Lakefield 178 Storden-Jeffers 633 Lamberton 638 Sanborn Emmons 245 Glenville 421 Brownton 426 Stewart 55 Clinton-Graceville 57 Beardsley Audubon 24 Lake Park 648 Danube 654 Renville 655 Sacred Heart Sioux Valley 2862 Jackson County Central 604-Mentor dissolved and attached to 599-Fertile-Beltrami and 2609-Win-E-Mac 2897 Redwood Area 2898 Westbrook-Walnut Grove Belview 2758 Redwood Falls-Morton 175 Westbrook 641 Walnut Grove Cooperation and Combination Consolidation Consolidation Consolidation Consolidation Consolidation Consolidation Consolidation Consolidation Consolidation Dissolution and Attachment Consolidation Consolidation 5

102 New District Number New District Name Old District(s) Statute Plainview-Elgin-Millville 806 Elgin-Millville 810 Plainview Consolidation 2902 Russell-Tyler-Ruthton 409 Tyler 418 Russell Consolidation 584 Ruthton Ortonville Area Schools 0062 Ortonville 0371 Bellingham Consolidation 2904 Tracy Area Schools 0417 Tracy 0411 Balaton Consolidation 2159 Buffalo Lake-Hector 2159 Buffalo Lake-Hector 2887 McLeod West 1 Consolidation 2365 G.F.W G.F.W McLeod West 1 Consolidation 2859 Glencoe-Silver Lake 2859 Glencoe-Silver Lake 2887 McLeod West 1 Consolidation Tri-City United (TCU) 0392 LeCenter 394 Montgomery-Lonsdate Consolidation Consolidated and portions attached to ISD 2159, ISD 2365 and ISD No Consolidations, Cooperation and Combinations, or Dissolution and Attachments in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2010 and STATISTICS July 1, 1980 through July 1, 2012 Consolidations under Minnesota Statutes, Section 123A New Districts 102 Districts Consolidated Cooperation and Combination under Minnesota Statutes, Section 123A New Districts 83 Districts Consolidated Dissolution and Attachment under Minnesota Statutes, Section 123A.46 Totals 2 Districts Dissolved 4 Districts Involved 87 Reorganization Agreements 189 Districts involved in Reorganization 6

103 Mahtomedi Story This resolution stems from a unique situation driven by the Stillwater School District decision to close three elementary schools. An involuntary citizen-driven proposal came forward to merge the Stillwater School District with the Mahtomedi School District. The citizen generated idea would ideally merge the two school districts and reopen the three closed Stillwater elementary schools. It is important to note that the consolidation was not brought forward by school administrators or either school district. Neither school district has ever express any interest in consolidating or merging. The citizen generated plan was moved forward because 50 citizens signed a petition from the new school district made up two school districts. Mahtomedi Superintendent Mark Larson said, It (the consolidation) doesn t make sense in the metro area. The reason you pair and share oftentimes in the rural areas is often a sense of desperation you need to keep the school or the town open. Mahtomedi is operating from a position of strength and we have no interest in consolidation. Larson went on to share that his district has spent a lot of time right-sizing their district and doesn t want to jeopardize taxpayer investment and families who would have to redistrict. The superintendent also shared early in his career, he lived through the consolidation between Glencoe and Silver Lake in the 1990s. The Mahtomedi and Stillwater School Districts was mandated to work through the consolidation process only because of the statutory threshold of 50 resident voter or 25 percent of voter residents whichever is less, was used to force involuntary consolidation. It is unacceptable process in The statute was originally written in 1959 and is in desperate need of updating. The Stillwater and Mahtomedi School Districts spent from December 2015 through March 2016 dealing with this involuntary consolation. It took both school districts away from focusing on student achievement and accountability. This plan was doomed from the start because neither school district was interested in consolidation. Even the Commissioner of Education had to become involved and held a public meeting in Stillwater to discuss this consolidation with the public. Under the process in law an involuntary consolidation is eventually brought back to both school district to vote on whether they wished to consolidate. Minn. Stat. 123A.48, Subd. 10 says, The board of any independent district whose land is included in the proposed new district, must, within 45 days of the approval of the plat by the commissioner (MDE), either adopt or reject the plan as proposed in the approved plat. If the board of any such district entitled to act on the petition rejects the proposal, the proceedings are terminated and dismissed. The Mahtomedi School Board voted to oppose the consolidation and the entire process was terminated at that point. The following page has a diagram which shows how the voluntary and involuntary consolidation works: 7

104 8

105 PROS and CONS Pros: Statute is out of date and doesn t reflect present day school voters and communities. The public may use this law to harass school districts. Since the involuntary consolidation was forced on Mahtomedi and Stillwater, the harassment of consolidation involuntary will grow to other school districts. The present process is very unproductive for students and communities. It wastes precious school district resources. Cons: Consolidation is a complicated system. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION This process for involuntary consolidation is sadly out of date and now functions as a public harassment tool. We need to support updating this statute, so it can function better for schools, students, and communities. 9

106 2017 Delegate Assembly Proposed Legislative Resolutions EDUCATION PROGRAMS RESOLUTION #16 FEATURES OF AN ACCOUNTABILITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM Name: Lucy Payne, School Board Chair School district: Mahtomedi School District This resolution is submitted with the support of the school board. Recommendation: Passage RESOLUTION STATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, THAT MSBA URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO IMPROVE THE STATE S ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT SYSTEM BY SUPPORTING THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES: TRANSPARENT: THE STATE WILL BUILD TRUST AND BUY-IN AROUND THE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM BY PROVIDING INFORMATION REGARDING THE METHOD OF TEST DEVELOPMENT, THE PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ASSESSMENTS, HOW THE ASSESSMENTS ARE ALIGNED TO THE STANDARDS, AND PURPOSE AND VALIDITY OF RESULTS. INFORMATIVE: RESULTS ARE CLEAR AND CONCISE FOR TEACHERS, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF, STUDENTS, PARENTS AND THE PUBLIC. ACTIONABLE: RESULTS PROVIDE ANNUAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SYSTEM- LEVEL DECISIONS. ALIGNED: ACADEMIC ASSESSMENTS SHOULD BE ALIGNED TO THE STATE STANDARDS. TIMELY: RESULTS PROVIDED IN A TIMELY MANNER ARE USEFUL FOR TEACHERS, STUDENTS AND PARENTS. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE BY SCHOOL DISTRICT Every Student Succeeds Act - Link to the general page containing several resources. ESSA Assessment Fact Sheet Provides a summary of the assessment regulations. No current policy. CURRENT POLICY 1

107 CURRENT LAW Minn. Stat. 120B.30 STATEWIDE TESTING AND REPORTING SYSTEM BACKGROUND BY MSBA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Minnesota s Academic Assessments (MCAs) With the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015, annual testing in grades 3-8 and high school in mathematics and reading or Language Arts and grade-span testing in science is maintained. These tests are aligned to the Minnesota academic standards. There are many complicated technical requirements that must be satisfied for any statewide assessment used for accountability. Future Design Working Group A Future Design Working Group was commissioned by the Minnesota Department of Education to explore how Minnesota might redesign the state s academic assessment system and to make recommendations to the commissioner. Over the course of ten months, the working group investigated and discussed in-depth the balance between assessment design and administration, instructional time, data, and appropriate use of the assessment supports and results. The members grappled with the possibilities and specifics of Minnesota s next assessment design. The working group s recommendations address both specific policy changes necessary to create the desired assessment and accountability system, as well as the characteristics and features of a revamped system. The working group supports the development and implementation of an assessment system for Minnesota that provides a transparent, informative, actionable, aligned and timely information to students, parents, teacher and the school district. Other recommendations were to shorten the length of the MCAs and provide better staff training to make the tests more useful. Members of the Future Design Working Group included parents, school officials, teachers, business representatives, and the public. The working group held nine working meetings beginning on January 19, The final working meeting took place on October 2, 2017, and the recommendations included with the report were adopted. The working group constructed five recommendations to MDE s commissioner, which represent the group s conversations and deliberations. The recommendations represent majority consensus and not unanimous opinions. RATIONALE MSBA supports the assessment principles provided in this resolution, which have been adapted in part by the Future Design Working Group. These principles provide a general, principled approach to a broader look at the assessment system as we evaluate future proposals. Future legislative proposals may include shortening the length of the assessments and providing flexibility for school districts to administer the ACT in place of the high school MCAs. PROS and CONS Pros: Assessment and accountability systems in the future need to be transparent, informative, actionable, timely and aligned to standards. 2

108 Adopting these principles will guide decision-making and policies in the future. These principles in part were developed from a wide variety of stakeholders. Cons: Some will see this as support for standardized annual assessments, which according to some have led to over testing in the state of Minnesota. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION Assessment and accountability systems in the future need to be transparent, informative, actionable, timely and aligned to standards. 3

109 2017 Delegate Assembly Proposed Legislative Resolutions EDUCATION PROGRAMS RESOLUTION #17 INCREASE FUNDING FOR PATHWAY II EARLY LEARNING SCHOLARSHIPS Name: Stephanie Levine, Board Chair School district: West St. Paul-Mendota Heights-Eagan Area #197 Phone: address: This resolution is submitted with the support of the school board. Recommendation: Passage RESOLUTION STATEMENT BE IT RESOLVED, THAT MSBA URGES THE LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE INCREASED STATE FUNDING FOR PATHWAY II EARLY LEARNING SCHOLARSHIPS. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE BY SCHOOL DISTRICT Fund Early Learning Scholarships (only Pathway II) so that our most needy students can have access to high quality preschool. Our district receives $47,810 in Pathway II funds/pathway II supports 34 students ($2,200 per pupil). For a half day program with transportation, the cost is $3,380 per pupil. EL is currently subsidizing $1,180 per pupil. We have 12 students currently on a waitlist for scholarships. However, we are only serving a third of potential students that need scholarships. EX: 400 students x.42 (F/R percentage) = 168 students potential need scholarships to access four-year old preschool programming. CURRENT POLICY Page 29, Urges the legislature to ensure that any expansion of the Early Education Program allow for flexibility in the implementation, structure, staffing and timing, as well as appropriating adequate and equitable resources for additional age-appropriate classrooms and fully fund transportation costs in order to meet the needs of the local community. Page 29, Urges the legislature to provide public schools the necessary funding to cover the full cost of a voluntary comprehensive School Readiness Program, in addition to other K-12 funding in order to increase student achievement. A School Readiness Program would prepare at-risk children ages three to five to enter kindergarten - including sufficient funding for transportation costs, related parent involvement components, and allowances so that all children from families who qualify for free or reduced lunches and/or English language learner programs would be able to participate at no charge and all other families would pay according to a sliding fee scale based on family income. 1

110 Page 29, Urges the legislature to provide full funding for any pre-school program the state mandates. CURRENT LAW Minn. Stat. 124D.165 EARLY LEARNING SCHOLARSHIPS RATIONALE Definition/Purpose The purpose of the Early Learning Scholarships Program is to increase access to high-quality early childhood programs for children prior to kindergarten with the highest need to improve school readiness of all young children. As defined in state statute, Pathway II Early Learning Scholarships are awarded to Four-Star Parent Aware Rated programs. Applications for the programs that are accepted and approved by MDE will be defined as Pathway II scholarship sites and may use the Pathway II Early Learning Scholarship funds to increase access. Increased access is defined as increasing program participation by reducing barriers. Should be thought of as reducing barriers, such as socio-economic issues. Funding The Early Learning Scholarships Program was an initiative created by Governor Dayton and finalized by the 2013 Minnesota Legislature to expand access to high-quality early childhood education programs for children ages three to five with high needs. Funding for early learning scholarships has increased each year as indicated in the table below. However, legislation passed in 2017 limits the amount of Pathway II scholarships to no more than the amount granted in FY $23 million 2015 $23 million 2016 $44 million 2017 $59 million 2018 $70.2 million 2019 $70.6 million Priority for scholarships is given based on family income, geographic region and whether the child was enrolled in or on a waiting list for a publicly-funded program providing early childhood education or child care; attributes that many of Minnesota s neediest children possess. Enrollment The table below shows enrollment from July 1, 2015-June The Pathway II Scholarships increased. For a more in-depth look, please see the Early Learning Scholarships Use in Minnesota State Fiscal Year 2016 in Appendix B. 2

111 Early Learning Scholarship Use in Minnesota State Fiscal Year Ending June 2016 Over 60 percent of the statewide early learning scholarships used in 2016 were Pathway II scholarships and over half of the total early learning scholarship recipients were three- and four-year-olds. Many of Minnesota s neediest children are being served via the Pathway II scholarship, as shown in the table below. Early Learning Scholarship Use in Minnesota State Fiscal Year Ending June 2016 PROS and CONS Pros: Expands access to high-quality education, services and instructional time for all children. Supports evidence-based practices for family and community engagement. Families may not have out-of-pocket expenses. The scholarship program focuses on a more diverse and at-risk student population. Stabilizes funding for a proven program. School districts that have set up early learning programs have no promise that, two years from a starting point, they will have funding for those programs. Adds another choice to meet the needs of parents. 3

Financing Education In Minnesota

Financing Education In Minnesota Financing Education In Minnesota 2016-2017 Created with Tagul.com A Publication of the Minnesota House of Representatives Fiscal Analysis Department August 2016 Financing Education in Minnesota 2016-17

More information

FY 2018 Guidance Document for School Readiness Plus Program Design and Site Location and Multiple Calendars Worksheets

FY 2018 Guidance Document for School Readiness Plus Program Design and Site Location and Multiple Calendars Worksheets FY 2018 Guidance Document for School Readiness Plus Program Design and Site Location and Multiple Calendars Worksheets June 8, 2017 The FY 2018 School Readiness Plus Program Design and Site Location worksheet

More information

An Introduction to School Finance in Texas

An Introduction to School Finance in Texas An Introduction to School Finance in Texas May 12, 2010 Sheryl Pace TTARA Research Foundation space@ttara.org (512) 472-8838 Texas Public Education System 1,300 school districts (#1 in the nation) 1,025

More information

Milton Public Schools Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Presentation

Milton Public Schools Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Presentation Milton Public Schools Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Presentation 1 Background 2 How does Milton s per-pupil spending compare to other communities? Boston $18,372 Dedham $17,780 Randolph $16,051 Quincy $16,023

More information

Trends & Issues Report

Trends & Issues Report Trends & Issues Report prepared by David Piercy & Marilyn Clotz Key Enrollment & Demographic Trends Options Identified by the Eight Focus Groups General Themes 4J Eugene School District 4J Eugene, Oregon

More information

House Finance Committee Unveils Substitute Budget Bill

House Finance Committee Unveils Substitute Budget Bill April 28, 2017 House Finance Committee Unveils Substitute Budget Bill On Tuesday, April 25, the House Finance Committee adopted a substitute version of House Bill 49, the budget bill for Fiscal Years (FY)

More information

Description of Program Report Codes Used in Expenditure of State Funds

Description of Program Report Codes Used in Expenditure of State Funds Program Report Codes (PRC) A program report code (PRC) is an accounting term and is used for the allocation and accounting of funds. The PRCs (allocations) may change from year to year depending on the

More information

Personnel Administrators. Alexis Schauss. Director of School Business NC Department of Public Instruction

Personnel Administrators. Alexis Schauss. Director of School Business NC Department of Public Instruction Personnel Administrators Alexis Schauss Director of School Business NC Department of Public Instruction Delivering Bad News in a Good Way Planning Allotments are NOT Allotments Budget tool New Allotted

More information

KSBA Staff Review of HB 520 Charter Schools Rep. Carney - (as introduced )

KSBA Staff Review of HB 520 Charter Schools Rep. Carney - (as introduced ) KSBA Staff Review of HB 520 Charter Schools Rep. Carney - (as introduced 2-17-17) Section Statute Summary Comments 1 pg. 1 DEFINITIONS FOR SECTIONS 1 TO 10 Definition of achievement gap conflicts with

More information

FORT HAYS STATE UNIVERSITY AT DODGE CITY

FORT HAYS STATE UNIVERSITY AT DODGE CITY FORT HAYS STATE UNIVERSITY AT DODGE CITY INTRODUCTION Economic prosperity for individuals and the state relies on an educated workforce. For Kansans to succeed in the workforce, they must have an education

More information

Tale of Two Tollands

Tale of Two Tollands Tale of Two Tollands 3-14-2017 State of Connecticut Enrollment trends Tolland Public School Enrollment Enrollment 2006-2016 3141 3131 3149 3151 3054 2954 2837 2733 2657 2599 2484 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08

More information

State Budget Update February 2016

State Budget Update February 2016 State Budget Update February 2016 2016-17 BUDGET TRAILER BILL SUMMARY The Budget Trailer Bill Language is the implementing statute needed to effectuate the proposals in the annual Budget Bill. The Governor

More information

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Title I Comparability

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Title I Comparability Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Title I Comparability 2009-2010 Title I provides federal financial assistance to school districts to provide supplemental educational services

More information

CONTINUUM OF SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES FOR SCHOOL AGE STUDENTS

CONTINUUM OF SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES FOR SCHOOL AGE STUDENTS CONTINUUM OF SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES FOR SCHOOL AGE STUDENTS No. 18 (replaces IB 2008-21) April 2012 In 2008, the State Education Department (SED) issued a guidance document to the field regarding the

More information

UPPER ARLINGTON SCHOOLS

UPPER ARLINGTON SCHOOLS UPPER ARLINGTON SCHOOLS SERVE LEAD SUCCEED CHALLENGE AND SUPPORT EVERY STUDENT, EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. 2014-2015 www.uaschools.org 1950 North Mallway Drive Upper Arlington, Ohio 43221 (614) 487-5000 Introduction

More information

Summary of Special Provisions & Money Report Conference Budget July 30, 2014 Updated July 31, 2014

Summary of Special Provisions & Money Report Conference Budget July 30, 2014 Updated July 31, 2014 6.4 (b) Base Budget This changes how average daily membership is built in the Budget. Until now, projected ADM increases have been included in the continuation budget. This special provision defines what

More information

1.0 INTRODUCTION. The purpose of the Florida school district performance review is to identify ways that a designated school district can:

1.0 INTRODUCTION. The purpose of the Florida school district performance review is to identify ways that a designated school district can: 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview Section 11.515, Florida Statutes, was created by the 1996 Florida Legislature for the purpose of conducting performance reviews of school districts in Florida. The statute

More information

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS REVISED BY THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS ANALYSIS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS REVISED BY THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS ANALYSIS BILL #: HB 269 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS REVISED BY THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS ANALYSIS RELATING TO: SPONSOR(S): School District Best Financial Management Practices Reviews Representatives

More information

Michigan and Ohio K-12 Educational Financing Systems: Equality and Efficiency. Michael Conlin Michigan State University

Michigan and Ohio K-12 Educational Financing Systems: Equality and Efficiency. Michael Conlin Michigan State University Michigan and Ohio K-12 Educational Financing Systems: Equality and Efficiency Michael Conlin Michigan State University Paul Thompson Michigan State University October 2013 Abstract This paper considers

More information

Intervention in Struggling Schools Through Receivership New York State. May 2015

Intervention in Struggling Schools Through Receivership New York State. May 2015 Intervention in Struggling Schools Through Receivership New York State May 2015 The Law - Education Law Section 211-f and Receivership In April 2015, Subpart E of Part EE of Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2015

More information

State Parental Involvement Plan

State Parental Involvement Plan A Toolkit for Title I Parental Involvement Section 3 Tools Page 41 Tool 3.1: State Parental Involvement Plan Description This tool serves as an example of one SEA s plan for supporting LEAs and schools

More information

TRENDS IN. College Pricing

TRENDS IN. College Pricing 2008 TRENDS IN College Pricing T R E N D S I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N S E R I E S T R E N D S I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N S E R I E S Highlights 2 Published Tuition and Fee and Room and Board

More information

Dr. Brent Benda and Ms. Nell Smith

Dr. Brent Benda and Ms. Nell Smith School Case Studies Dr. Brent Benda and Ms. Nell Smith Bureau of Legislative Research Case Study Objectives Examine eschools s that have aeachieved ed sg significant improvement and schools that have been

More information

Volunteer State Community College Strategic Plan,

Volunteer State Community College Strategic Plan, Volunteer State Community College Strategic Plan, 2005-2010 Mission: Volunteer State Community College is a public, comprehensive community college offering associate degrees, certificates, continuing

More information

PUBLIC SCHOOL OPEN ENROLLMENT POLICY FOR INDEPENDENCE SCHOOL DISTRICT

PUBLIC SCHOOL OPEN ENROLLMENT POLICY FOR INDEPENDENCE SCHOOL DISTRICT PUBLIC SCHOOL OPEN ENROLLMENT POLICY FOR INDEPENDENCE SCHOOL DISTRICT Policy 423.1 This policy shall be administered in accordance with the state public school open enrollment law in sections 118.51 and

More information

Buffalo School Board Governance

Buffalo School Board Governance POLICY BRIEF December 9, 2013 Buffalo School Board Governance William Miller SUNY Buffalo Law Student What is the Buffalo Board of Education? The Board of Education of the Buffalo City School District

More information

Position Statements. Index of Association Position Statements

Position Statements. Index of Association Position Statements ts Association position statements address key issues for Pre-K-12 education and describe the shared beliefs that direct united action by boards of education/conseil scolaire fransaskois and their Association.

More information

July 13, Maureen Bartolotta, Chair; Jim Sorum, Vice Chair; Maureen Peterson, Clerk; Arlene Bush, Treasurer; Mark Hibbs and Chuck Walter.

July 13, Maureen Bartolotta, Chair; Jim Sorum, Vice Chair; Maureen Peterson, Clerk; Arlene Bush, Treasurer; Mark Hibbs and Chuck Walter. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 271 Bloomington, Minnesota July 13, 2009 I. ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, and there being a

More information

World s Best Workforce Plan

World s Best Workforce Plan 2017-18 World s Best Workforce Plan District or Charter Name: PiM Arts High School, 4110-07 Contact Person Name and Position Matt McFarlane, Executive Director In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section

More information

Definitions for KRS to Committee for Mathematics Achievement -- Membership, purposes, organization, staffing, and duties

Definitions for KRS to Committee for Mathematics Achievement -- Membership, purposes, organization, staffing, and duties 158.842 Definitions for KRS 158.840 to 158.844 -- Committee for Mathematics Achievement -- Membership, purposes, organization, staffing, and duties of committee -- Report to Interim Joint Committee on

More information

FTE General Instructions

FTE General Instructions Florida Department of Education Bureau of PK-20 Education Data Warehouse and Office of Funding and Financial Reporting FTE General Instructions 2017-18 Questions and comments regarding this publication

More information

Program budget Budget FY 2013

Program budget Budget FY 2013 Program budget Budget FY 2013 Fairfax County, Virginia www.fcps.edu Fairfax County Public Schools FY 2013 Program Budget Ilryong Moon, Chairman Member at Large Pat Hynes, Vice Chairman Hunter Mill District

More information

(2) "Half time basis" means teaching fifteen (15) hours per week in the intern s area of certification.

(2) Half time basis means teaching fifteen (15) hours per week in the intern s area of certification. 16 KAR 7:010. Kentucky Teacher Internship Program. RELATES TO: KRS 156.101, 161.028, 161.030, 161.048, 161.095 STATUTORY AUTHORITY: KRS 161.028(1)(a), 161.030 NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY: KRS 161.030(5)

More information

Systemic Improvement in the State Education Agency

Systemic Improvement in the State Education Agency Systemic Improvement in the State Education Agency A Rubric-Based Tool to Develop Implement the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Achieve an Integrated Approach to Serving All Students Continuously

More information

About the College Board. College Board Advocacy & Policy Center

About the College Board. College Board Advocacy & Policy Center 15% 10 +5 0 5 Tuition and Fees 10 Appropriations per FTE ( Excluding Federal Stimulus Funds) 15% 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93

More information

CONNECTICUT GUIDELINES FOR EDUCATOR EVALUATION. Connecticut State Department of Education

CONNECTICUT GUIDELINES FOR EDUCATOR EVALUATION. Connecticut State Department of Education CONNECTICUT GUIDELINES FOR EDUCATOR EVALUATION Connecticut State Department of Education October 2017 Preface Connecticut s educators are committed to ensuring that students develop the skills and acquire

More information

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SUPERINTENDENT SEARCH CONSULTANT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SUPERINTENDENT SEARCH CONSULTANT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SUPERINTENDENT SEARCH CONSULTANT Saint Paul Public Schools Independent School District # 625 360 Colborne Street Saint Paul MN 55102-3299 RFP Superintendent Search Consultant, St.

More information

A. Permission. All students must have the permission of their parent or guardian to participate in any field trip.

A. Permission. All students must have the permission of their parent or guardian to participate in any field trip. 6230 Field Trips Original Adoption: 04/25/1967 Effective Date: 08/14//2013 Revision Dates: 03/28/1972, 12/16/1975, 08/13/1985, 08/13/2013 Review Dates: I. PURPOSE Field trips are an important adjunct of

More information

Minnesota s Consolidated State Plan Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

Minnesota s Consolidated State Plan Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Minnesota s Consolidated State Plan Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) To be submitted to the U.S. Department of Education in September 2017 IMPORTANT NOTE: This is an early draft prepared for

More information

Chapter 9 The Beginning Teacher Support Program

Chapter 9 The Beginning Teacher Support Program Chapter 9 The Beginning Teacher Support Program Background Initial, Standard Professional I (SP I) licenses are issued to teachers with fewer than three years of appropriate teaching experience (normally

More information

Glenn County Special Education Local Plan Area. SELPA Agreement

Glenn County Special Education Local Plan Area. SELPA Agreement Page 1 of 10 Educational Mental Health Related Services, A Tiered Approach Draft Final March 21, 2012 Introduction Until 6-30-10, special education students with severe socio-emotional problems who did

More information

DEPARTMENT OF ART. Graduate Associate and Graduate Fellows Handbook

DEPARTMENT OF ART. Graduate Associate and Graduate Fellows Handbook DEPARTMENT OF ART Graduate Associate and Graduate Fellows Handbook June 2016 Table of Contents Introduction-Graduate Associates... 3 Graduate Associate Responsibilities... 4 A. Graduate Teaching Associate

More information

In 2010, the Teach Plus-Indianapolis Teaching Policy Fellows, a cohort of early career educators teaching

In 2010, the Teach Plus-Indianapolis Teaching Policy Fellows, a cohort of early career educators teaching Introduction Dollars and Sense: Elevating the teaching profession by leveraging talent In 2010, the Teach Plus-Indianapolis Teaching Policy Fellows, a cohort of early career educators teaching in low-income

More information

Governors and State Legislatures Plan to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

Governors and State Legislatures Plan to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Governors and State Legislatures Plan to Reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Summary In today s competitive global economy, our education system must prepare every student to be successful

More information

SHEEO State Authorization Inventory. Kentucky Last Updated: May 2013

SHEEO State Authorization Inventory. Kentucky Last Updated: May 2013 SHEEO State Authorization Inventory Kentucky Last Updated: May 2013 Please note: For purposes of this survey, the terms authorize and authorization are used generically to include approve, certify, license,

More information

Trends in Tuition at Idaho s Public Colleges and Universities: Critical Context for the State s Education Goals

Trends in Tuition at Idaho s Public Colleges and Universities: Critical Context for the State s Education Goals 1 Trends in Tuition at Idaho s Public Colleges and Universities: Critical Context for the State s Education Goals June 2017 Idahoans have long valued public higher education, recognizing its importance

More information

Basic Skills Plus. Legislation and Guidelines. Hope Opportunity Jobs

Basic Skills Plus. Legislation and Guidelines. Hope Opportunity Jobs Basic Skills Plus Legislation and Guidelines Hope Opportunity Jobs Page 2 of 7 Basic Skills Plus Legislation When the North Carolina General Assembly passed the 2010 budget bill, one of their legislative

More information

Seminole State College Board Regents Regular Meeting

Seminole State College Board Regents Regular Meeting June 16, 2016 Enoch Kelly Haney Center Board Room Seminole State College Board Regents Regular Meeting President s Report 1 Personnel Update New Hires Michael St. John Athletic Director Daniel Hill Head

More information

Higher Education. Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. November 3, 2017

Higher Education. Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. November 3, 2017 November 3, 2017 Higher Education Pennsylvania s diverse higher education sector - consisting of many different kinds of public and private colleges and universities - helps students gain the knowledge

More information

Capitalism and Higher Education: A Failed Relationship

Capitalism and Higher Education: A Failed Relationship Capitalism and Higher Education: A Failed Relationship November 15, 2015 Bryan Hagans ENGL-101-015 Ighade Hagans 2 Bryan Hagans Ighade English 101-015 8 November 2015 Capitalism and Higher Education: A

More information

Greetings, Ed Morris Executive Director Division of Adult and Career Education Los Angeles Unified School District

Greetings, Ed Morris Executive Director Division of Adult and Career Education Los Angeles Unified School District Greetings, The thesis of my presentation at this year s California Adult Education Administrators (CAEAA) Conference was that the imprecise and inconsistent nature of the statute authorizing adult education

More information

Executive Summary. Laurel County School District. Dr. Doug Bennett, Superintendent 718 N Main St London, KY

Executive Summary. Laurel County School District. Dr. Doug Bennett, Superintendent 718 N Main St London, KY Dr. Doug Bennett, Superintendent 718 N Main St London, KY 40741-1222 Document Generated On January 13, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Description of the School System 2 System's Purpose 4 Notable

More information

Rules and Regulations of Doctoral Studies

Rules and Regulations of Doctoral Studies Annex to the SGH Senate Resolution no.590 of 22 February 2012 Rules and Regulations of Doctoral Studies at the Warsaw School of Economics Preliminary provisions 1 1. Rules and Regulations of doctoral studies

More information

California Professional Standards for Education Leaders (CPSELs)

California Professional Standards for Education Leaders (CPSELs) Standard 1 STANDARD 1: DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A SHARED VISION Education leaders facilitate the development and implementation of a shared vision of learning and growth of all students. Element

More information

GRADUATE STUDENTS Academic Year

GRADUATE STUDENTS Academic Year Financial Aid Information for GRADUATE STUDENTS Academic Year 2017-2018 Your Financial Aid Award This booklet is designed to help you understand your financial aid award, policies for receiving aid and

More information

Series IV - Financial Management and Marketing Fiscal Year

Series IV - Financial Management and Marketing Fiscal Year Series IV - Financial Management and Marketing... 1 4.101 Fiscal Year... 1 4.102 Budget Preparation... 2 4.201 Authorized Signatures... 3 4.2021 Financial Assistance... 4 4.2021-R Financial Assistance

More information

Lakewood Board of Education 200 Ramsey Avenue, Lakewood, NJ 08701

Lakewood Board of Education 200 Ramsey Avenue, Lakewood, NJ 08701 March 20, 2017 Judee DeStefano-Anen Interim Executive County Superintendent 212 Washington Street Toms River, NJ 08753 Dear Dr. DeStefano-Anen: It is with great sadness that I must inform you that the

More information

A New Compact for Higher Education in Virginia

A New Compact for Higher Education in Virginia October 22, 2003 A New Compact for Higher Education in Virginia Robert B. Archibald David H. Feldman College of William and Mary 1. Introduction This brief paper describes a plan to restructure the relationship

More information

Education in Armenia. Mher Melik-Baxshian I. INTRODUCTION

Education in Armenia. Mher Melik-Baxshian I. INTRODUCTION Education in Armenia Mher Melik-Baxshian I. INTRODUCTION Education has always received priority in Armenia a country that has a history of literacy going back 1,600 years. From the very beginning the school

More information

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT By 2030, at least 60 percent of Texans ages 25 to 34 will have a postsecondary credential or degree. Target: Increase the percent of Texans ages 25 to 34 with a postsecondary credential.

More information

APPENDIX A-13 PERIODIC MULTI-YEAR REVIEW OF FACULTY & LIBRARIANS (PMYR) UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL

APPENDIX A-13 PERIODIC MULTI-YEAR REVIEW OF FACULTY & LIBRARIANS (PMYR) UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL APPENDIX A-13 PERIODIC MULTI-YEAR REVIEW OF FACULTY & LIBRARIANS (PMYR) UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL PREAMBLE The practice of regular review of faculty and librarians based upon the submission of

More information

Your Guide to. Whole-School REFORM PIVOT PLAN. Strengthening Schools, Families & Communities

Your Guide to. Whole-School REFORM PIVOT PLAN. Strengthening Schools, Families & Communities Your Guide to Whole-School REFORM PIVOT PLAN Strengthening Schools, Families & Communities Why a Pivot Plan? In order to tailor our model of Whole-School Reform to recent changes seen at the federal level

More information

Invest in CUNY Community Colleges

Invest in CUNY Community Colleges Invest in Opportunity Invest in CUNY Community Colleges Pat Arnow Professional Staff Congress Invest in Opportunity Household Income of CUNY Community College Students

More information

Every Student Succeeds Act: Building on Success in Tennessee. ESSA State Plan. Tennessee Department of Education December 19, 2016 Draft

Every Student Succeeds Act: Building on Success in Tennessee. ESSA State Plan. Tennessee Department of Education December 19, 2016 Draft Every Student Succeeds Act: Building on Success in Tennessee ESSA State Plan Tennessee Department of Education December 19, 2016 Draft Table of Contents INTRODUCTION... 1 TENNESSEE SUCCEEDS... 1 Ambitious

More information

AGENDA ITEM VI-E October 2005 Page 1 CHAPTER 13. FINANCIAL PLANNING

AGENDA ITEM VI-E October 2005 Page 1 CHAPTER 13. FINANCIAL PLANNING Page 1 CHAPTER 13. FINANCIAL PLANNING Subchapter F. FORMULA FUNDING AND TUITION CHARGED FOR REPEATED AND EXCESS HOURS OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS Section 13.100. Purpose. 13.101. Authority 13.102. Definitions.

More information

Arkansas Private Option Medicaid expansion is putting state taxpayers on the hook for millions in cost overruns

Arkansas Private Option Medicaid expansion is putting state taxpayers on the hook for millions in cost overruns Arkansas Private Option Medicaid expansion is putting state taxpayers on the hook for millions in cost overruns ObamaCare advocates repeatedly promise that Medicaid expansion is fully funded by the federal

More information

ILLINOIS DISTRICT REPORT CARD

ILLINOIS DISTRICT REPORT CARD -6-525-2- HAZEL CREST SD 52-5 HAZEL CREST SD 52-5 HAZEL CREST, ILLINOIS and federal laws require public school districts to release report cards to the public each year. 2 7 ILLINOIS DISTRICT REPORT CARD

More information

Financial aid: Degree-seeking undergraduates, FY15-16 CU-Boulder Office of Data Analytics, Institutional Research March 2017

Financial aid: Degree-seeking undergraduates, FY15-16 CU-Boulder Office of Data Analytics, Institutional Research March 2017 CU-Boulder financial aid, degree-seeking undergraduates, FY15-16 Page 1 Financial aid: Degree-seeking undergraduates, FY15-16 CU-Boulder Office of Data Analytics, Institutional Research March 2017 Contents

More information

Value of Athletics in Higher Education March Prepared by Edward J. Ray, President Oregon State University

Value of Athletics in Higher Education March Prepared by Edward J. Ray, President Oregon State University Materials linked from the 5/12/09 OSU Faculty Senate agenda 1. Who Participates Value of Athletics in Higher Education March 2009 Prepared by Edward J. Ray, President Oregon State University Today, more

More information

ILLINOIS DISTRICT REPORT CARD

ILLINOIS DISTRICT REPORT CARD -6-525-2- Hazel Crest SD 52-5 Hazel Crest SD 52-5 Hazel Crest, ILLINOIS 2 8 ILLINOIS DISTRICT REPORT CARD and federal laws require public school districts to release report cards to the public each year.

More information

MANAGEMENT CHARTER OF THE FOUNDATION HET RIJNLANDS LYCEUM

MANAGEMENT CHARTER OF THE FOUNDATION HET RIJNLANDS LYCEUM MANAGEMENT CHARTER OF THE FOUNDATION HET RIJNLANDS LYCEUM Article 1. Definitions. 1.1 This management charter uses the following definitions: (a) the Executive Board : the Executive Board of the Foundation,

More information

Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

Frequently Asked Questions and Answers Definition and Responsibilities 1. What is home education? Frequently Asked Questions and Answers Section 1002.01, F.S., defines home education as the sequentially progressive instruction of a student

More information

St. Mary Cathedral Parish & School

St. Mary Cathedral Parish & School Parish School Governance St. Mary Cathedral Parish & School School Advisory Council Constitution Approved by Parish Pastoral Council April 25, 2014 -i- Constitution of the St. Mary Cathedral School Advisory

More information

Trends in College Pricing

Trends in College Pricing Trends in College Pricing 2009 T R E N D S I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N S E R I E S T R E N D S I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N S E R I E S Highlights Published Tuition and Fee and Room and Board

More information

STATE CAPITAL SPENDING ON PK 12 SCHOOL FACILITIES NORTH CAROLINA

STATE CAPITAL SPENDING ON PK 12 SCHOOL FACILITIES NORTH CAROLINA STATE CAPITAL SPENDING ON PK 12 SCHOOL FACILITIES NORTH CAROLINA NOVEMBER 2010 Authors Mary Filardo Stephanie Cheng Marni Allen Michelle Bar Jessie Ulsoy 21st Century School Fund (21CSF) Founded in 1994,

More information

Student Assessment and Evaluation: The Alberta Teaching Profession s View

Student Assessment and Evaluation: The Alberta Teaching Profession s View Number 4 Fall 2004, Revised 2006 ISBN 978-1-897196-30-4 ISSN 1703-3764 Student Assessment and Evaluation: The Alberta Teaching Profession s View In recent years the focus on high-stakes provincial testing

More information

SCICU Legislative Strategic Plan 2018

SCICU Legislative Strategic Plan 2018 The primary objective of the South Carolina Independent Colleges and Universities Legislative Strategic Plan is to establish an agenda and course of action for a program of education and advocacy on matters

More information

Orange Elementary School FY15 Budget Overview. Tari N. Thomas Superintendent of Schools

Orange Elementary School FY15 Budget Overview. Tari N. Thomas Superintendent of Schools + Orange Elementary School FY15 Budget Overview Tari N. Thomas Superintendent of Schools + The Key Metrics of the Organization: Orange Elementary Enrollment 661 Attendance 94% Average Class Size 22 Student

More information

NC Community College System: Overview

NC Community College System: Overview NC Community College System: Overview Presentation to Joint Appropriations Subcommittee on Education Brett Altman Mark Bondo Fiscal Research Division March 18, 2015 Presentation Agenda 1. NCCCS Background

More information

November 6, Re: Higher Education Provisions in H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Dear Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Neal:

November 6, Re: Higher Education Provisions in H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Dear Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Neal: The Honorable Kevin Brady The Honorable Richard Neal Chairman Ranking Member Ways and Means Committee Ways and Means Committee United States House of Representatives United States House of Representatives

More information

INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA.

INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA. Education Act 1983 (Consolidated to No 13 of 1995) [lxxxiv] Education Act 1983, INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA. Being an Act to provide for the National Education System and to make provision (a)

More information

MSW POLICY, PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION (PP&A) CONCENTRATION

MSW POLICY, PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION (PP&A) CONCENTRATION MSW POLICY, PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION (PP&A) CONCENTRATION Overview of the Policy, Planning, and Administration Concentration Policy, Planning, and Administration Concentration Goals and Objectives Policy,

More information

Nova Scotia School Advisory Council Handbook

Nova Scotia School Advisory Council Handbook Nova Scotia School Advisory Council Handbook June 2017 Nova Scotia School Advisory Council Handbook Crown copyright, Province of Nova Scotia, 2017 The contents of this publication may be reproduced in

More information

Fiscal Years [Millions of Dollars] Provision Effective

Fiscal Years [Millions of Dollars] Provision Effective JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION December 3, 2014 JCX-107-14 R ESTIMATED REVENUE EFFECTS OF H.R. 5771, THE "TAX INCREASE PREVENTION ACT OF 2014," SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

More information

Hiring Procedures for Faculty. Table of Contents

Hiring Procedures for Faculty. Table of Contents Hiring Procedures for Faculty Table of Contents SECTION I: PROCEDURES FOR NEW FULL-TIME FACULTY APPOINTMENTS... 2 A. Search Committee... 2 B. Applicant Clearinghouse Form and Applicant Data Sheet... 2

More information

CHAPTER 4: REIMBURSEMENT STRATEGIES 24

CHAPTER 4: REIMBURSEMENT STRATEGIES 24 CHAPTER 4: REIMBURSEMENT STRATEGIES 24 INTRODUCTION Once state level policymakers have decided to implement and pay for CSR, one issue they face is simply how to calculate the reimbursements to districts

More information

Charter School Reporting and Monitoring Activity

Charter School Reporting and Monitoring Activity School Reporting and Monitoring Activity All information and documents listed below are to be provided to the Schools Office by the date shown, unless another date is specified in pre-opening conditions

More information

CONSULTATION ON THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE COMPETENCY STANDARD FOR LICENSED IMMIGRATION ADVISERS

CONSULTATION ON THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE COMPETENCY STANDARD FOR LICENSED IMMIGRATION ADVISERS CONSULTATION ON THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE COMPETENCY STANDARD FOR LICENSED IMMIGRATION ADVISERS Introduction Background 1. The Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 (the Act) requires anyone giving advice

More information

Guidelines for the Use of the Continuing Education Unit (CEU)

Guidelines for the Use of the Continuing Education Unit (CEU) Guidelines for the Use of the Continuing Education Unit (CEU) The UNC Policy Manual The essential educational mission of the University is augmented through a broad range of activities generally categorized

More information

The Tutor Shop Homework Club Family Handbook. The Tutor Shop Mission, Vision, Payment and Program Policies Agreement

The Tutor Shop Homework Club Family Handbook. The Tutor Shop Mission, Vision, Payment and Program Policies Agreement The Tutor Shop Homework Club Family Handbook The Tutor Shop Mission, Vision, Payment and Program Policies Agreement Our Goals: The Tutor Shop Homework Club seeks to provide after school academic support

More information

THE VISION OF THE BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES

THE VISION OF THE BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES AGENDA CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES EDWARD A. GREER EDUCATION CENTER, BOARD ROOM 2832 E. FLAMINGO ROAD, LAS VEGAS, NV 89121 THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 2017 5:00

More information

Strategic Plan Dashboard Results. Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

Strategic Plan Dashboard Results. Office of Institutional Research and Assessment 29-21 Strategic Plan Dashboard Results Office of Institutional Research and Assessment Binghamton University Office of Institutional Research and Assessment Definitions Fall Undergraduate and Graduate

More information

AB104 Adult Education Block Grant. Performance Year:

AB104 Adult Education Block Grant. Performance Year: AB104 Adult Education Block Grant Performance Year: 2015-2016 Funding source: AB104, Section 39, Article 9 Version 1 Release: October 9, 2015 Reporting & Submission Process Required Funding Recipient Content

More information

ACCREDITATION STANDARDS

ACCREDITATION STANDARDS ACCREDITATION STANDARDS Description of the Profession Interpretation is the art and science of receiving a message from one language and rendering it into another. It involves the appropriate transfer

More information

Reference to Tenure track faculty in this document includes tenured faculty, unless otherwise noted.

Reference to Tenure track faculty in this document includes tenured faculty, unless otherwise noted. PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT FACULTY DEVELOPMENT and EVALUATION MANUAL Approved by Philosophy Department April 14, 2011 Approved by the Office of the Provost June 30, 2011 The Department of Philosophy Faculty

More information

that when ONE ISSUE NUMBER e Education Chair House Rep. Harry Brooks favor. evaluations, Jim Coley of on their own evaluated

that when ONE ISSUE NUMBER e Education Chair House Rep. Harry Brooks favor. evaluations, Jim Coley of on their own evaluated Volume 22, No. 2 for the week ending February 8, 2013 It looks like another busy legislativee session for education on Capitol Hill. House Education Chairman Harry Brooks of Knoxville (right) recently

More information

GUIDE TO EVALUATING DISTANCE EDUCATION AND CORRESPONDENCE EDUCATION

GUIDE TO EVALUATING DISTANCE EDUCATION AND CORRESPONDENCE EDUCATION GUIDE TO EVALUATING DISTANCE EDUCATION AND CORRESPONDENCE EDUCATION A Publication of the Accrediting Commission For Community and Junior Colleges Western Association of Schools and Colleges For use in

More information

Guidelines for Mobilitas Pluss postdoctoral grant applications

Guidelines for Mobilitas Pluss postdoctoral grant applications Annex 1 APPROVED by the Management Board of the Estonian Research Council on 23 March 2016, Directive No. 1-1.4/16/63 Guidelines for Mobilitas Pluss postdoctoral grant applications 1. Scope The guidelines

More information

Special Education Program Continuum

Special Education Program Continuum Special Education Program Continuum 2014-2015 Summit Hill School District 161 maintains a full continuum of special education instructional programs, resource programs and related services options based

More information

Rethinking the Federal Role in Elementary and Secondary Education

Rethinking the Federal Role in Elementary and Secondary Education Rethinking the Federal Role in Elementary and Secondary Education By Paul T. Hill 1Are the values or principles embodied in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 the same values or principles

More information