In the last post, Jvonkorff on Education discussed the recommendations of the 2004 education finance task force that Minnesota should adopt “a rationally determined,
learning-linked, student-oriented and cost-based Instructional Services
Allocation”. The rationale for a cost based instructional service allocation is quite straightforward. Beginning in the 1990's, Minnesota began to transform our K-12 educational system from one that specified a specified minimum hours of classroom instruction, to one that specified a specified set of learning outcomes with proficiency standards. It is beyond dispute that students come to school with varying degrees of readiness to learn the prescribed material.
Common sense, and now decades of experience, lead to the conclusion that students with higher educational needs require more support for their learning, including better teaching, a more thoughtful rigorous curriculum, and significantly more learning time. Over three decades, in keeping with Minnesota's commitment to high standards, the legislature has passed a series of state mandates to districts to enhance learning for all students. To avoid losing our train of thought, I've listed the major learning mandates at the bottom of this post.
It stands to reason, doesn't it, that if we want to run Minnesota's system in a thorough and efficient way, as the constitution requires, we would begin by asking "how much does it cost, to do the things we must do? As a lawyer, when a client asks me to undertake a major case, we need to address how much the case is going to cost. The more work the case is going to take, the greater the cost, and if the client wants experienced lawyers to manage the case, they will certainly expect that the cost per hour will be higher. If the client asks me to handle a case that is likely to cost $100,000 for only $50,000, I'm going to be compelled to refuse, except in rare occasions where I'm donating my time and talent. But in Minnesota, the state throws cost out the window and its not working for students with higher educational needs, and it is particularly not working for school districts that serve large numbers of students with high educational needs.
With that preface, let's return to the 2004 Inve$ting in our Future report and then the following post will look at the 2006 preliminary costing report that followed. Inve$ting in Our Future warned that Minnesota must increase funding substantially for schools and districts with high student populations having higher educational needs. As mentioned in the last post, the Task Force Report urged that Minnesota's funding formula should take into account the added costs included with relevant characteristics of each student (e.g., disabilities, poverty, school readiness, English language learners, and student mobility).
The task force pointed out that students with higher educational needs come to school behind. If we allow them to stay behind, then they spend their entire school year trying to catch up to their advantaged peers, but in the same instructional time. The Task Force stated what should be obvious, if you have more learning to do, you are going to need more time, and probably extra help. The Task Force asserted that we need to get those students caught up as soon as we can, and that means that we should be providing students who need it extra learning time in the early grades, and lots of it. It argued that:
Common sense, and now decades of experience, lead to the conclusion that students with higher educational needs require more support for their learning, including better teaching, a more thoughtful rigorous curriculum, and significantly more learning time. Over three decades, in keeping with Minnesota's commitment to high standards, the legislature has passed a series of state mandates to districts to enhance learning for all students. To avoid losing our train of thought, I've listed the major learning mandates at the bottom of this post.
It stands to reason, doesn't it, that if we want to run Minnesota's system in a thorough and efficient way, as the constitution requires, we would begin by asking "how much does it cost, to do the things we must do? As a lawyer, when a client asks me to undertake a major case, we need to address how much the case is going to cost. The more work the case is going to take, the greater the cost, and if the client wants experienced lawyers to manage the case, they will certainly expect that the cost per hour will be higher. If the client asks me to handle a case that is likely to cost $100,000 for only $50,000, I'm going to be compelled to refuse, except in rare occasions where I'm donating my time and talent. But in Minnesota, the state throws cost out the window and its not working for students with higher educational needs, and it is particularly not working for school districts that serve large numbers of students with high educational needs.
With that preface, let's return to the 2004 Inve$ting in our Future report and then the following post will look at the 2006 preliminary costing report that followed. Inve$ting in Our Future warned that Minnesota must increase funding substantially for schools and districts with high student populations having higher educational needs. As mentioned in the last post, the Task Force Report urged that Minnesota's funding formula should take into account the added costs included with relevant characteristics of each student (e.g., disabilities, poverty, school readiness, English language learners, and student mobility).
The task force pointed out that students with higher educational needs come to school behind. If we allow them to stay behind, then they spend their entire school year trying to catch up to their advantaged peers, but in the same instructional time. The Task Force stated what should be obvious, if you have more learning to do, you are going to need more time, and probably extra help. The Task Force asserted that we need to get those students caught up as soon as we can, and that means that we should be providing students who need it extra learning time in the early grades, and lots of it. It argued that:
For large proportions of students to achieve at the Minnesota academic standards level, school funding will have to be directed to provide (1) earlier¬ in-the-life-of-a-student instruction primarily in the form of greater individualized instruction in the primary grades (kindergarten through 3rd grade) and (2) extended school day, school year, and school career exposure to systematic instruction.
Governor Pawlenty disbanded the Task Force as it was about to complete its work on the actual revenues required to deliver an education that meets all state standards, as our Constitution requires. In the next post, I'll look at the costing report that picked up where the 2004 task force left off.
Minnesota State Standards
Those laws include MINN. STAT. §120B.02, subdiv. 1 (2017) (“Educational Expectations And Graduation Requirements for Minnesota’s Students”); MINN. STAT. § 120B.02, subdiv. 1(a) (2017) (requiring the commissioner to adopt rigorous academic standards); MINN. STAT. § 120B.021 (2017) (listing required academic standards); MINN. STAT. § 120B.018, subdiv. 2 (2017) (defining “academic standard” as “a summary description of student learning in a required content area under section 120B.02 or elective content area under section 120B.022”); MINN. STAT. § 120B.11 (2017) (listing programmatic standards and requiring school boards to align strategic plan with world’s best workforce requirements); MINN. STAT. § 120B.024 (2017) (discussing course credit and academic standards); MINN. STAT. § 120B.11, subdiv. 1(c) (2017) (defining “World’s Best Workforce”); LEAPS Act, MINN. STAT. §§ 124D.65, subdiv. 6, 124D.58–.64 (2017); MINN. STAT. § 125A (2017) (“Special Education and Special Programs”); MINN. STAT. §§ 125A.01, subdiv. 2 (defining “Dyslexia”), 125A.56, subdiv. 1 (2017) (“Alternate Instruction Before Assessment Referral”).
No comments:
Post a Comment
comments welcome