Will the Inn be Full in the Walz Education Budget

Minnesota has a long history of welcoming refugees and immigrants from across the world, with occasional aberrations during times of nativist sentiment.   Immigrants make our state and nation strong, and in the long run, they make major economic contributions to the welfare of the state.  Immigrants have made contributions in science, technology, and industry.  Their work ethic powered the iron range, agriculture, and the construction industry.  The authors of our constitution included a mandate to provide a uniform thorough and efficient system of public education with immigrants and English language learners in mind.  They believed that education was the "balance wheel of the social machinery," essential to our democratic tradition.  

It was in that spirit that Governor Walz rejected an invitation from the Trump administration to remove the welcome mat for refugees from Minnesota's front door.  Immigrants and refugees have become an important element of communities like Minneapolis, St. Paul, Worthington, Wilmar and St. Cloud.   Yet, next year is a budget year, and one wonders whether the Governor's budget will speak as loudly with action as he has done with his words.  

A study by the Association of Metropolitan School Districts estimates that as of FY 2016, the "English language learner cross-subsidy" in Minnesota school districts was about $100 million per year.   That's the difference between what school districts actually spend on ELL education and the amount of state funding provided to cover the extra cost of English language learner education.   However, that underestimates the difference, because most school districts are unable to offer programs that actually meet state standards.  This is especially true with what the state calls "Students with Limited or Interrupted Formal Education" (SLIFE), many of whom are refugees. 

In a recent court filing here in St. Cloud, the Walz administration and legislature told the state district court that the state has no constitutional obligation to provide what the administration calls the "extra cost" of affording English language learners, "students of poverty" and students with disabilities an education that meets state standards.  In essence, the Governor and Attorney General are saying:  the inn is not full in Minnesota, but please don't ask the state to pay for the cost of educating those students. 

There is no doubt that refugees and immigrants make a valuable contribution to Minnesota.  Decades ago, Minnesota provided many unskilled and semi-skilled jobs. But in today's economy, the educational demands are far greater.   If we want refugees and immigrants to provide the greatest possible contribution to our economy, it is essential that our schools prepare them for success.  Moreover, Minnesota's LEAPS Act demands that they do.  If Minnesota' is going to be a welcoming state, then Minnesota should ante up the cost of that welcoming, and not expect to shift the cost of education onto a few communities. 

Hooray for the Governor, in standing up for what is the best of a welcoming Minnesota.  Most educators by far agree with his position.  But in this first education budget of the Walz administration, we will have an opportunity to find out whether the Governor recognizes that the cost of providing English language learning is a state obligation -- as the constitution provides -- or whether he is expecting that the communities who welcome immigrants and refugees are on their own when it comes to providing that education.   For 25 years, the state has shirked its constitutional responsibility to provide the full dollar cost of providing state required education to English language learners (and to other students as well).   If Governor Walz really stands for an inn-is-not-full policy, he will include the cost of providing the state-mandated education to English language learners, instead of shifting that cost to the welcoming communities.

• SCERAC Asks Court of Appeals to Enforce Skeen's Funding Mandate