Ow AMSD Qa” Association of Metropolitan School Districts 1667 Snelling Ave. N. St.Paul, MN $5108 - 651-999-7325 + fax 651-999-7328 + www.amsd.org Board of Directors Meeting, Association of Metropolitan School Districts Friday, December 2, 2016, 7:00 am — 9:00 am Grand Hall, TIES Conference Center, St. Paul, MN I. Welcome and Introductions Chair John Vento called the meeting to order at 7:35 am. Vento welcomed the members present and asked if any introductions needed to be made. Several introductions were made. IL. Routine Business A. Approval of Minutes of November 4 Meeting A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes from the November 4" meeting. The motion was approved, IL. Guest Speaker Chair John Vento introduced the guest speaker, Minnesota Department of Education Director of Early Leaming Services Bobbie Burnham. Ms. Bumham provided an update on the voluntary prekindergarten ‘grant program and otlier early learning programs. Ms. Burnham concluded her presentation with a brief question and answer session with AMSD board members. IV. Executive Committee Report Chair Vento called members’ attention to the FY 2016 AMSD audit which was available at each table and had been emailed to board members prior to the meeting. Chair Vento noted that the audit showed that AMSD is in a sound financial position. The audit cited two weaknesses that have consistently existed due to AMSD's small staff size. Those weaknesses are a lack of segregation of duties and the fact that the auditor prepares the financial statements. The audit report acknowledges that AMSD is addressing these issues within it financial constraints and that it would not be cost effective to hire additional staff to further address these issues. Chair Vento asked members if there were any questions or concerns and there were none. A motion was made and seconded to accept the FY 2016 AMSD audit. ‘The motion was approved. V. Legislative Committee Report ‘The next order of business was to review the draft of the AMSD legislative platform included in the packet. Chair Vento noted that the legislative committee had been working on the platform since September and that the board had reviewed a draft at the November meeting. Chair Vento noted a few minor changes to the platform that had been implemented since the November meeting. A motion was made and seconded to adopt the 2017 legislative platform. The motion was approved. Chair Vento next asked members to review the updated AMSD position papers on Special Education, ‘Mandate Reduction and Local Control and Early Childhood Education. Vento noted that the proposed changes to the position papers were highlighted. Vento reported that the position papers had all been approved by the board in previous years and that the changes were to reflect updated demographic data, new research and/or legislative changes enacted in 2016. Chair Vento asked if board members had anyfeedback or comments. After a brief discussion, Chair Vento asked for a motion to approve the slate of position papers. A motion was made and seconded to approve the updated position papers. The motion was approved unanimously VI. Executive Director’s Report Executive Director Croonquist began his report by updating members on the election results and the new landscape at the Capitol with the Republicans taking control of the senate and increasing their majority in the house. Croonquist noted that the legislative leadership in the house will remain the same while there will be new leadership in the senate. Croonquist reported that the December state budget forecast will be released later today. He noted that school choice issues will likely be proposed at both the federal and state levels and that it will likely be a significant challenge to secure adequate resources for education. Croonquist reminded members that AMSD’s Legislative Preview program will be on January 6 and noted that invitations had been sent out to all AMSD legislators and encouraged members to personally invite their local legislators to attend. Croonquist also reminded members of the superintendent's think tank event that will be held on December 7. Croonquist concluded his report by noting that the final ESSA regulations had been released and he highlighted a few of the key provisions. Croonquist concluded his report by taking a few questions from board members. VIL. Ad Hoc Committee on Equity and Integration Report Executive Director Croonguist asked Superintendent John Schultz from Hopkins to share an update on the Ad Hoc Committee on Equity and Integration. Croonquist also noted that the ad hoc commiti would be meeting following the AMSD board meting. Superintendent Schultz started by recognizing, the ad hoc committee members and thanked them for their work, Schultz noted that the group is working to address the issues that were raised in the Cruz-Guzman lawsuit. Schultz noted that the committee issued a request for services to hire a consultant to facilitate the work of the group and that the committee had interviewed four firms and made the decision to hire Forbes Consulting. Superintendent Schultz. introduced Paula Forbes and asked her to give a brief update. Ms. Forbes thanked AMSD for the opportunity and shared a brief overview of some of the processes she will be using to gather input and collect data. VIL Adjourn Chair Vento thanked all members for coming and noted that the handouts from the meeting are on the AMSD website. Chair Vento noted the upcoming meetings and adjourned the meeting at 8:54 AM. Attendance: ‘Steve Ker, David Law, Nicole Hayes and Al Ickler from Anoka-Hennepin; Les Fujtake from Bloomington; Michelle Trelstad, Mark Bonine and Cheryl Jechorek from Brooklyn Center, Kathy Kelly and Jon Larkin from Columbia Heights; ‘im Bauck from Eastem Carver County; Curt Tryggestad from Eden Prairie; Bruce Watkins from Elk River; Jean Lubke from Equity Allimce; Steve Correro and Jake Cordes from Farmington; Peggy Flathmann and Mary Kay Delvo from, Fridley; Betsy Anderson, Steve Adams, Catharine Callahan, Katie Stennes and John Schultz from Hopkins; Dave Bembardson and Paul Mandell from Inver Grove Heights; Bob Erickson and Lisa Snyder from Lakeville; Mike Chevalier ‘nd Mark Larson from Mahtomedi; Josh Downham and Ed Graff from Minneapolis; Dennis Peterson from Minnetonka; Marilynn Forsberg from NE Metro 916; Melissa Jordan from Northwest Suburban; Martha VandeVen from Orono; Teri ‘Staloch from Prior Lake-Savage; Peter Toensing from Richfield; Leona Detden, Cariton Jenkins, John Vento, Linda Johnson, Michael Favor and Kristine Wehrkamp from Robbinsdale; Tony Taschner from Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan; Aldo Sicoli and Karen Schaub from Roseville; John Bezek from Shakopee; Bob Lane and Andrea Scamehom from St. Anthony; Bruce Hentges from St. Cloud; John Thein, Jackie Statum Allen and Mary Vanderwert from St. Paul; Bob Noyed and Jeff ‘Ronneberg from Spring Lake Park; Darren Kermes from SouthWest Metro; Dave Webb from South St. Paul; Annette Sallman from Stillwater; Chace Anderson, Cheryl Polzin and Andrea Cuene from Wayzata; Kimberly Matier and Kara Richardson from WMED; Nancy Allen-Mastro from West St, Paul-Mendota Heights-Eagan; Wayne Kazmierczak and Marissa Vette from White Bear Lake; Charlene Briner and Bobbie Burnham from MDE; Kris Amundson, Lori Griva, Scott Croonquist, Alice Seuffert, and Sara O"Rourke from AMSD.wm AMSD wT Association of Metropolitan School Districts 1667 Snelling Ave.N, St.Paul, MN 55108 + 651-999-7325 «fax 651-999-7328 - wormamsdorg AMSD Position on:Vouchers ‘The Association of Metropolitan School Districts opposes the diversion of public ~~) funds to nonpublic Schools through the use of vouchers or extending the K-12 tax ¢tedit to private school tuition. Furthermore, the State should require that any "School receiving public aid or enrolling students from families receiving public’ educational subsidies be accessible to all students and comply with all state laws and rules that are applicable to public schools. «--. a + Minriesota, through open enrollment, the | post-secondary enrollment options rogram, charter schools, on-line earning ‘and educational tax credits and deductions, isa national leader in providing school choice options. ‘+ Minnesota provides significant direct ‘subsidies to private schools to assist with the costs associated with transportation, textbooks, special education, counseling and nursing services, In addition, tax i credits and deductions are available to families of private school students, =" State taxpayers have a right to expect that ‘any institution that receives public dollars will be held accountable for how those funds are expended and will fllov all applicable state laws and regulations. + Citizens expect that taxpayer dollars will be | used at schools that are accessible to all children, including children with special needs. aa a ‘The United States Supreme Court ruling upholding ‘the Cleveland voucher program moved the debate ‘on providing public aid te private schools to the state level. Vouchers, according tothe US. Supreme Court, do not violate the US. Constitution's Prohibition against government establishment of religion. Asa result ofthat ruling each state was Jeftto deal with the issue on a state constitutional basis. n addition, itis important thet the various pble policy implications ofa voucher system be considered, ‘The Minnesota Constitution prohibits the State from directing public money to sectarian | schools. Article XI, Section 2 states, “In no case shall public money or property be appropriated or used for the support of schools wherein the distinctive doctrines, creeds or tenets of any particular Cristian or other religious sect are promulgated or taught” That language notwithstanding the Minnesota Supreme Court dias upheld the constitationality of directing pubic funds to students attending private, religious colleges Studies through the 1990s found that voucher students did not outperform the non-voucher students.1 Recent studies by the US. Department ‘of Education and the Center on Education Policy have confirmed previous studies and have shown that achlevementis about the same for both ‘groups of students? In 2015, a report rom the bipartisan Center for Tax and Budget Accountability suggests there {s no measurable difference between students using school vouchers and their peers in public schoolsIn 2016, two reports were released touting the postive impacts vouchers have on educational ‘outcomes: The reports were reviewed by the ‘National Education Policy Center which concluded, “Both reports are marred by 2 number of serious problems and errors," and “the manifold serious Flaws of each report undercut the trustworthiness oftheir conclusions and negate any utility for policymakers."AMSD Position on Vouchers In 2013, the Wisconsin State Department of Instruction released enrollment figures fr its voucher program expansion and revealed that only 21% of those students receiving a voucher attended a Wisconsin public school the previous year; 73% already attended a private school the previous year. During te fll of 2014, a review by tie Wisconsin State Journal released findings showing that since 2004, ‘Wisconsin taxpayers had paid $139 million to private schools subsequently banned from their voucher system for falling to meet requirements related to finance, accreditation, stadent safety and auditing ® The ‘Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported thatthe voucher program in Wisconsin will cost taxpayers $245 silion in the 2016-17 school year. ‘The American publicis overwhelmingly opposed to private school vouchers, The 2015 Phi Delta Kappa (PDK/Gallup Pol ofthe Public's Attitudes toward the Public Schools shows that only 3196 of Americans favor allowing students and parents to choose a private school to attend at public expense (vouchers). Minnesotans are likewise strongly opposed to private school vouchers. A publicopialon survey conducted by the Morris Leatherman Company In August of 2016 is reflected in the figure below and shows that over 60% of Minnesotans oppose vouchers tax credits for private/ religious schools. igure I: Vouchers/Tax Credits for PrivateReligious Schools ‘Support ‘8% | Unsure os Oppose erm Moris Leabeiman Coiosny Sep eflloning se Mt (198), Wit (1955 rene, Howe Petras (198) and een, Fern Da 1936). 2 See the following studies: US Dept of Education Braluatos ofthe DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (2007, 2008, 2008), Center on Education Policy, "Keeping Informed About School Voucters (2011) 2 Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, “Analysis af ladana Seool Choice Scholarship Program” Apil2015. ‘1AWincvin Solution: The Empirical Evidence on School Choice by Greg Forster and The Participant Efects of Private School Vouchers acros the Globe by M Danish Shakeel, Kalin P. Anderson and Patrick) Wole Wisconsin Stat Journal, “State paid $139 milion to schools terminated from vousher program since 2004" (Ocber 12, 2014) avaliable here: a -schaals ‘Ph Deka Kappan Gali, Testing Dossit Measure Up fr Americans PDK/calop Pl” Septeber201S16 er» AMSD tw Association of Metropolitan School Districts 167 Snelling Avenue N, St. Paul, MN 55108 + 651-999-7325 + fax 651-999-7328 + www.amsd.org January 27, 2017 To: _ AMSD Board of Directors From: Scott Croonquist, Executive Director RE: Board of Directors Meeting February 3, 2017, 7:00 AM — 9:00 AM Grand Hall, TIES Event Center St. Paul Breakfast served beginning at 7 a.m. Business meeting begins at 7:30 a.m, AGENDA is MI. ‘Welcome and Introductions Vento Routine Business Approval of Minutes of December 2 Meeting Vento Guest Speakers Vento - Rep. Sondra Erickson, Chair, House Education Innovation Policy Committee. - Sen. Eric Pratt, Chair, Senate E-12 Policy Committee Executive Director's Report Croonquist Executive Committee Report Vento Update on Ad Hoc Committee on Integration and Equity - Superintendent John Schultz and Paula Forbes, Forbes Solutions, PLLC Upcoming Meetings Executive/Legislative Committee Meeting AMSD Board of Directors 7:30 ~ 9:00 a.m., Friday, February 24, 2016 7:00 — 9:00 a.m., Friday, March 3, 2017 Lexington Room, TIES Event Genter Grand Hall, TIES Event Center St. Paul St. PaulMinnesota Department of Educatién Governor's PreK - 12 Budget $604 million in FY18/19 to support students, families and educators "Education is the Engine to Opportunity and Success. ‘Meeting the Needs of Students and Schools * General Education Formula Increase. Increases the General Education Basic Formula by 2 Percent in FY2018 and an additional 2 percent in FY2019, a $370 million increase. This will increase the per pupil formula by $121, from $6067 to $6,188 in FY2018 and by an additional $124 to $6,312 in FY2019. ‘+ Special Education Increase. Increases state special education spending by $40 million in the FY2018/2019 biennium. This will reduce the statewide special education cross subsidy by about {$20 million, and allow school districts and charter schools to better serve the 133,678 children and youth who receive special education services, ‘+ Debt Service Equalization (Tax bill Increases the state share of school debt service revenue a total of $20 million for FY2018/2019. Debt service equalization aid helps ensure that school districts regardless of property wealth, can provide adequate facilities for their students, This will increase the number of school districts recelving debt service aid from 40 to 61, and increase the amount of aid for 38 of the 40 districts, ‘+ American indian Tribal Contract Aid. $4.4 million to make permanent the funding increases to ‘American Indian Tribal Contract aid made in FY16, Without these funds 759 students in 4 Bureau: of Indian Education schools will see a 45 percent decrease in state funding, Investing in Our Earliest Learners ‘+ Voluntary Prekindergarten. Increases funding for the voluntary prekindergarten program by ‘$74 million over the biennium to serve an additional 6,000 students. The governor’s proposal would ensure that more students will be able to enter the program every year. ‘+ Help Me Grow. $3 million over the biennium to expand the current Help Me Grow system to develop a comprehensive statewide, coordinated system of early identification, referral and follow-up for up to 630,000 children prenatal to age 8 and their families. ‘+ Early Learning Scholarship Expansion. Increases children’s access to high quality early care and education programs by expanding access to children ages zero to five.Community Supports ‘+ Education Partnerships and Transformation Zones. Emphasizes local collaboration and solutions focused on academic achievement and youth development by increasing funding for the Minnesota's Education Partnership Program and Transformation Zones. Combined, the Northside Achievernent Zone, St. Paul Promise Neighborhood, Jones Family Foundation, Independent School District 742 and the Northfield Healthy Community Initiative currently serve ‘over 24,000 children. $1 million over the biennium will allow these entities to continue to Support and increase the number of children and families served. ‘+ Full Service Community Schools. Provides $2 million over the biennium to order to reach more children and improve the quality and outcomes of the services provided. There are currently 13, full service community schools. This funding could allow more schools into the program. ‘Supporting Educators + Student Support Staff. Addresses shortages of student support staff by providing $4 million in rants to schools to hire more student support services personnel. Last year’s funding allowed schools to hire 77 additional staff. The proposed funding could allow schools to add up to 30, more new staff. © Online IEP Funding. $1.4 million over the biennium to create a state online special education documentation system. This voluntary system will create a streamlined system and make it easier for teachers to complete required paperwork. ‘+ Pension Relief. improves the Teacher Retirement Association (TRA) and St. Paul Teachers Retirement Fund Association (SPTRFA) funding status. TRA and SPTRFA serve over 188,000 active and retired preK-12 teachers, administrators, and college and university faculty. Provides $68 million in aid to school districts and charter schools to offset a proposed increase in ‘employer contribution rates for TRA and SPTRFA. ‘A State Agency that Provides Leadership and Support ‘+ Mand Cybersecurity. $3.25 million over the biennium to provides crucial updates to MDE ‘mainframe applications which were developed in 1974. These applications are used to calculate {and distribute $6 billion in state aid and $380 million in federal aid annually to school districts and charter schools. ‘+ An Agency that Supports Schools and Families. Funding to maintain and enhance services to students, families and educators. $10M so that MDE can support schools in meeting their ‘World's Best Workforce goals, improve educational achievement, and support educators.January 16, 2017 To: — Minnesota Legislators From: Kirk Schneidawind, MIN School Boards Association Gary Amoroso, MN Association of School Administrators ‘Scott Croonquist, Association of Metropolitan School Districts Fred Nolan, MN Rural Education Associaion Brad Lundell, Schools for Equity in Education Re: Biennial Growth in E-12 Education Spending ‘Comparing Biennial E-12 Education Spending: The Real Story Behind the Numbers The complicated nature of the education funding system often leads to an inaccurate picture of the state of funding for school districts. A prime example is comparing education spending from ‘one biennium to the next biénnium rather than comparing year-to-year spending. Case in Boint, the November 2016 Budget and Economic Forecast shows that education spending is Projected to grow by $774 million (4%) from the 2016-17 biennium to the 2018-19 biennium. However, biennium to biennium comparisons can provide a greatly distorted picture of school funding that is not reflective of the actual funding increases received by school districts. Below is an explanation of the biennium to biennium cost increases. It is important that state policymakers understand the real story behind the numbers. Special Education. ($292 million) The projected increase in special education expenditures is the result of more students receiving special education services and the new special education funding formula that was adopted in the 2013 session. While state special education aid Is projected to grow significantly, ‘mandated special education expenditures are projected to grow even faster. In fact, the Minnesota Department of Education projects that the special education cross-subsidy - the amount by which schoo! district special education expenditures exceed special education revenue ~ is projected to grow. The increased number of students receiving special education services and the new formula accounts for $292 million of the biennial increase. Pupil Growth. ($223 million) ‘Since general education spending is largely driven by the number of students served by our Public schools, faster than projected pupil growth accounts for a large share of the projected increase in education spending. While pupil growth results in a significant cost increase for the State, it does not provide additional per pupil funding for school districts. The latest forecast shows that pupil growth in the 2018-19 biennium is projected to exceed previous forecasts by 26,000 pupils. The increased number of pupils accounts for almost $223 million of the projected biennial increase in education spending.Second Year Effect A third factor arises when the Legislature enacts a new program or increases funding for an existing program effective in the second year of the biennium. In this case, the program only requires one year of funding in the current biennium but must be funded for BOTH years in the subsequent biennium. There are two significant examples of this from the 2016-17 biennium. ‘+ Long-term Facilities and Maintenance Revenue Program. ($131 million) This important new program, recommended in 2014 by the School Facilities Financing ‘Working Group, was adopted in 2015 effective for the FY 2017. It only required funding in the second year of the 2016-17 biennium but will need to be funded for both years of the 2018-19 biennium. This accounts for $131 million of the biennial increase from 2016-17 to 2018-19. ‘+ Formula Increase ($110 million) ‘The 2015 Legislature approved an increase in the basic formula of 2% per year for the 2016-17 biennium. Here again, the increase that took effect in the second year of the 2016-17 biennium only had to be paid for once in that biennium but will have to be paid for in both years of the 2018-19 biennium. Additional cost drivers include an increase in the compensatory education program due toa higher number of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch and some changes to the mix of state aid vs. property tax levies. The 2015 education bill lowered some property tax levies and replaced the revenue with state aid. While such changes result in increased spending for the State, they are revenue neutral for school districts. Why is this important? State policymakers may be led to believe that school districts are scheduled to receive significant new funding over the next two years if they look only at the biennium to biennium spending comparison. It is important that legislators understand that ‘the vast majority of increased state spending described above does not represent new operating revenue for school districts and in no way negates the need for investments in the basic formula allowance, special education and other important education programs during the 2017 session. Major Drivers of School Funding: 18-19 ‘More Students, New Facitlities Funding, Second Year Funding Effect ‘New special education formula and increase special education costs $292 ‘Growth in pupils served $223 New Long Term Facility Maintenance (LTFM) Scheduled Implementation $131 Second year formula increase ‘$110 Total $737