One plan, billed as “The New Minnesota Miracle”, has been proposed by Rep. Mindy Greiling and Sen. Terri Bonoff with the support of Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher.  It grew out of work done by a coalition of associations that represent school boards and administrators from across Minnesota.  It would increase school funding by $1.7 billion annually, roughly 26% above current levels.  Along with increasing funding, the plan is designed to improve the fairness of school funding across diverse districts. The proponents stress that the plan can be phased in, so that, in theory, it could be started in 2009.  Yet it would be hard to implement the plan’s complex mix of reductions in some spending programs, property tax relief and spending increases without significant new funding to ease the transition.

Growth & Justice, a Minnesota think tank, recently announced its plan Smart Investments which calls for a $1 billion annual increase.  I served on the steering committee for this project.  The emphasis of the Smart Investments plan is spending new money on strategies that have been proven to work in Minnesota and elsewhere.  For example, it would allocate $285 million to a combination of preschool for 4 year olds and smaller class sizes through grade 3.  One program that provided some of the research for this investment was the Chicago Child Parent Centers which served children age 3 to grade 3 as part of a single initiative.  It broke the institutional barrier between pre-school and kindergarten.  Another promising investment of $95 million aims to break the barrier between high school and college through supporting early college high school programs and other concurrent enrollment approaches that go beyond Minnesota’s post-secondary enrollment option.

The focus in the Smart Investments proposal is on spending new education money differently and in targeted ways aimed primarily at at-risk students.  In contrast, the thrust of the New Minnesota Miracle proposal is on distributing increased funding broadly in a way that is perceived as fairer than the current system.  Although the latter plan has some elements of education reform (for example, all day, every day kindergarten and a 1.5% set aside for innovative education), they are small in relation to the bill as a whole.  I’ll generalize a bit unfairly for emphasis: Smart Investments is reform; the New Minnesota Miracle is fairness.

Since we won’t have the money to do even one plan, we certainly can’t do both.  Some advocates are exploring ways they could be combined.  It is essential that the conversations about how to combine these different approaches be wide-ranging and public. 

The truth is that no proposal for a large increase in education spending will succeed unless it is fair and includes innovative reform strategies that work.  Whether the times are fat or lean, public stewards need to be able to assure parents and educators in each district that they are getting a reasonably fair share of the funding.  If they don’t, legislators representing that district won’t support the spending increase.  Reformers with plans for aggressively targeting large sums to just some of Minnesota students tend to underestimate the need to build a political base of support from a broad group of funding recipients.  At the same time, the public is concerned about how well schools are performing and wants to see better results.  Strong reform strategies built into a funding increase would increase the likelihood of public support.  A funding increase that combines reform and fairness has the best chance for success.

The 2009 Legislature will have a hard time starting on either reform plan in a big way.  Legislators at least ought to look for ways to experiment in Minnesota with the strategies advocated by Growth & Justice.  These experiments would build confidence among educators and the public that the ideas will work here and lay the foundation for expanding funding and innovation for education when we get the economy back on track.