Change in definition of school district?

Last year about $22.8 million in interest and dividend payments from Permanent School Fund investments were distributed among Minnesota’s school districts, in amounts of about $28 per resident pupil. Before fiscal year 2010, the revenue was treated as a General Fund offset.

Sponsored by House Education Finance Committee Chairman Pat Garofalo (R-Farmington), HF783 would expand the beneficiaries to include charter schools. It would also include charter schools in the statutory definition of “school district” and change the distribution of PSF revenue to pupils served instead of resident pupils. Resident pupils are the number of students who live in a district, but not those who actually attend district schools.

The committee laid the bill over March 14 for possible omnibus bill inclusion. It has no Senate companion.

Rep. Kathy Brynaert (DFL-Mankato) asked if redefining a school district for this purpose would cause unintended consequences related to the understanding of district or charter school requirements in other statutes.

The Minnesota School Boards Association believes the proposal would be unconstitutional, according to Grace Keliher, the association’s government relations director. In a 2008 opinion, Thomas Deans, the association’s legal counsel, referred to the original constitutional article, which stipulates that the fund income must go to school districts “in a manner prescribed by law.”

Eugene Piccolo, executive director of the Minnesota Association of Charter

Schools, said that article indicates the Legislature prescribes the law and therefore may decide to make changes.

“We always talk about the Permanent School Fund land as that owned by all the school children of Minnesota,” said Rep. Sondra Erickson (R-Princeton), no matter what kind of public school they attend.

If the change were to become law, charter schools could see new revenue ranging from a few hundred dollars to about $78,000 to a large K-12 charter school in Minneapolis. Some school districts could gain revenue because they enroll pupils from outside their districts, while others would lose income because more resident pupils enroll elsewhere. For example, Minneapolis Public Schools could lose approximately $321,800; Osseo Area Schools, $61,700; and Rochester Public Schools, $32,600.