More on the 70% solution

Remember when Spotty said that Governor Gimmick’s 70% plan for schools was just a wedge issue intended to be just another way to beat up on public schools? Well, even if you don’t remember it, he did. And here’s some more proof. The bill as reported out of the House Education and Policy Reform Committee can be found here. Go read it; it’s very short. It’s also complete horse pucky.

Here’s the definition of direct classroom expenditures and operating expenditures:

Section 1, Subdivision 1

(a)"Direct classroom expenditures" means instructional expenditures as defined in the uniform financial accounting and reporting standards excluding [emphasis is Spot’s] tuition payments to other Minnesota school districts, capital expenditures, and expenditures for athletics, other cocurricular activities, and extracurricular activities.

(b) "Total K-12 general operating expenditures" means the total expenditures in the general fund for kindergarten through grade 12, as defined in the uniform financial accounting and reporting standards, excluding [emphasis is Spot’s] tuition payments to other Minnesota school districts, pupil transportation expenditures, and capital expenditures.

A school district must spend under this bill, 70% of (b) on (a), meaning the bigger the (b) number, the bigger the (a) number must be. These definitions are a joke, albeit a bad one.

First off, the “uniform financial accounting and reporting standards” referred to are not defined in any way. Is there a body that promulgates them? How can they be changed? Do they exist? Does everyone agree on what they are? If, for purposes of the definition in (a), instructional expenditures must be reduced by expenditures for tuition payments to other Minnesota school districts, capital expenditures, and expenditures for athletics, other cocurricular activities, and extracurricular activities, it sounds like these latter items are included in somebody’s understanding of genuinely educational expenditures.

Would somebody tell Spotty what a cocurricular expenditure is with sufficient precision to make the statute enforceable? Extracurricular activities? What about a drama class that puts on a play, or bands or choruses that put on concerts? The ambiguity is colossal.

The bill also provides that a superintendent must “certify” that the district met the 70% requirement for the year. Kafka would love it.

But now, boys and girls, we come to the part where the bill goes from merely incomprehensible to farce.

The bill says that a school district that cannot meet the test can apply for a waiver, which the Commissioner of Education must grant or deny within 60 days. The waiver request must include a plan to get the district in compliance. What if the Commissioner is just having a bad day? There is no way to figure out when a Commissioner’s denial would be an abuse of discretion. Typos? Ugly stationery?

After you get this far, though, you will see that the whole thing is Kabuki theater. Why? If a superintendent submits a false certification, if a waiver request has no plan for remediation of the deficiency, if the Commissioner denies the waiver request, if the school district does zero to change its ways, what are the consequences? Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

This is just a lamentable bit of political theater. Nobody expects this piece of legislative garbage to actually become law. Shame on you Governor Gimmick.

Tags: Governor Gimmick panders a 70% solution