2010 School Mandates

Legislative Mandates (2010)

1). M.S.120A.40 School Calendar

This statute does not allow districts to begin an elementary or secondary year before Labor Day. Elected school board members should be able to determine the starting and ending date of the district’s school calendar. While assessment standards continue to rise through NCLB, the state legislature continues to limit the methods districts can use to increase learning opportunities for public school students. Elected school board members should be able to determine a learning calendar that meets the demands of the families, students and businesses. Virginia, Michigan and Minnesota are the only states that impose this mandate. In the 2010-11 school year, school districts will be required to start school no earlier than Sept 7. In 2011-12, school districts will be required to start school no earlier than September 5.

Repeal

2). M.S. 120A.41 Length of School Year; Days of Instruction

A school board's annual school calendar must include at least the number of days of student instruction the board formally adopted as its school calendar at the beginning of the 1996-1997 school year. This limits districts authority to reduce the number of days to reduce building, transportation and labor costs. It is unlikely that districts will use this tool due to the increased academic demands, but the state legislature did not anticipate the enormous economic and budget challenges that school districts would be facing.

Repeal: Standards-based reform and focuses on student “seat time” as academic indicator of success.

3). M.S.123B.02 Subd. 15 General Powers of Independent School Districts

The law requires districts to negotiate the number and identity of 403(b) vendors. School districts had the authority to limit the number and identity of vendors unilaterally. The 2008 change will cost district time and possibly administrative expenses because it is now a term and condition of employment.

Repeal

4). M.S.123B.05 Contract Deadline and Penalty

While the intentions of this statue are understood, this statute puts school boards at a disadvantage. Teachers have continuing contract rights. The deadline should be repealed. If a school board and exclusive representative of the teacher cannot reach a settlement on the master agreement by September 1 or the odd year, the school board and exclusive representative will be certified for binding arbitration. Each side will be required to submit a list of the items in dispute to the Bureau of Mediation Services. Arbitration will take place as presently provided in statute with the exception that the arbitrator’s award shall be either the school board’s final offer total package or the exclusive representative final-offer total package unless conventional or item by item final-offer is mutually agreed upon bye the school board and exclusive representative of teachers.

Repeal

5). M.S. 123B.10 Publishing Requirements

Mandate to publish minutes and budget information in legal newspaper despite few reading them. Give school districts the option to publish minutes on their web site with a simple notice in the newspaper stating the Web address where the information can be found. This can reduce expenses for all districts in these tough economic times while still providing access to minutes and budget information.

Some of the publication requirement include:

Budgets - M.S. 123B.10

Consolidation of Districts - M.S.123B.48

Contracts and Bids - M.S.123B.52

Agreement proposal with Education Districts - M.S.123A.15

Hearings on Fees - M.S.123B.38

Interdistrict cooperative agreement meetings notice -M.S. 123A.32

School building grounds - M.S.123B.29, M.S.123B.51, M.S.123B.71

Election notices - M.S. 205A.07 and M.S. 645.13

6). M.S.123B.88 Transportation of Nonpublic School and Charter School Students

A district shall provide equal transportation within the district for all school children to any school when transportation is deemed necessary by the school board because of distance or traffic condition in like manner and form as provided in sections 123B.88 and 123B.92, when applicable.

If a charter school does not elect to provide transportation, transportation for pupils enrolled at the school must be provided by the district in which the school is located, according to sections 123B.88, subdivision 6, and 124D.03, subdivision 8, for a pupil residing in the same district in which the charter school is located. Transportation may be provided by the district in which the school is located, according to sections 123B.88, subdivision 6, and 124D.03, subdivision 8, for a pupil residing in a different district. If the district provides the transportation, the scheduling of routes, manner and method of transportation, control and discipline of the pupils, and any other matter relating to the transportation of pupils under this paragraph shall be within the sole discretion, control, and management of the district.

Option one: Allow school districts that provide transportation services to charter and nonpublic students to charge for the full cost of transporting students to their sites.

A charter school is eligible for an additional amount of general education revenue of approximately $230 per pupil if it elects to provide transportation services. In the alternative, a charter school may choose to have the school district in which it is located provide transportation services. In this case, the charter school does not receive any transportation funding, and the school district must provide transportation services to the charter school attendees in the same manner as it provides transportation to its resident students and students entering the school district under the enrollment options (open enrollment) program.

M.S.123B.86 EQUAL TREATMENTSubdivision 1.General provisions.

Subd. 2.Nonpublic school students.

(a) The board of any local district must provide school bus transportation to the district boundary for school children residing in the district at least the same distance from a nonpublic school actually attended in another district as public school pupils are transported in the transporting district. Such transportation must be provided whether or not there is another nonpublic school within the transporting district, if the transportation is to schools maintaining grades or departments not maintained in the district or if the attendance of such children at school can more safely, economically, or conveniently be provided for by such means.

(b) The school board of any local district may provide school bus transportation to a nonpublic school in another district for school children residing in the district and attending that school, whether or not there is another nonpublic school within the transporting district, if the transportation is to schools maintaining grades or departments not maintained in the district or if the attendance of such children at school can more safely, economically, or conveniently be provided for by such means. If the board transports children to a nonpublic school located in another district, the nonpublic school must pay the cost of such transportation provided outside the district boundaries.

Subd. 3.Board control.

When transportation is provided, the scheduling of routes, manner and method of transportation, control and discipline of school children and any other matter relating thereto shall be within the sole discretion, control and management of the board.

Option two: Clarify that school districts may charge for school bus transportation through the school fee law. A school district is prohibited form charging a fee for transportation to and from school for pupils living two miles or more from school.

M.S. 123B.36 AUTHORIZED FEES.Subdivision 1.School boards may require fees.

(a) For purposes of this subdivision, "home school" means a home school as defined in sections 120A.22 and 120A.24 with five or fewer students receiving instruction.

(b) A school board is authorized to require payment of fees in the following areas:

(11) transportation to and from school of pupils living within two miles from school and all other transportation services not required by law. If a district charges fees for transportation of pupils, it must establish guidelines for that transportation to ensure that no pupil is denied transportation solely because of inability to pay.

7). M.S.124D.122 Establishment of Flexible Learning Year Program

Eliminate the requirement that districts seek Commissioner approval on flexible learning year program. Authority should be given to local school boards and their community.

Thirteen school districts in the southwestern region of the state were denied an opportunity to use a flexible learning year that aligned instructional days with area community colleges. Mo These districts had received the support of their local communities as outlined in the statute. This was a great opportunity for a school districts and higher education institutions to share services on a voluntary basis while meeting the needs of families and students; only to be denied by a bureaucrat in St Paul. More important, an earlier start allows for more instructional days before the MCA II and NWEA assessments.

Repeal: Commissioner of Education authority to approve a flexible learning year.

8). M.S.126C.12 Learning and Development Revenue Amount and Use

Revenue must be used to reduce and maintain the districts instructor to learner ratios in grades K-6 to 1-17 on average. Priority of this revenue must begin in kindergarten and grade 1. A district must not increase the district wide instructor to learner ratio in K-6. In addition, only those licensed by the board of teaching and whose duties are full-time teaching may be counted in the ratio calculation. Less than full-time instructors may be counted based on the number of hours they teach in K-6. Statute should be limited to efforts in reducing class size in classes K-3 only.

Amend: language to create a merged category of K-3.

9). M.S. 126C.44 (a) Sub-Section 6 Safe School Levy

The 2009 legislature amended this statute. From a school district management perspective, the amendment is a step in the right direction but does not go far enough. School district officials should have the right to determine the number of employees that most effectively serve their students. The maintenance of effort mandate either requires districts to maintain the dollar amount expended OR the number of employees in the school support service area. This law takes the decision-making authority away from superintendents and school boards. Second, the law creates a disincentive for districts to hire additional support service personnel due to burden the maintenance of effort requirement places on school districts.

Repeal maintenance of effort requirement.

10. M.S.197.46 Veteran’s Preference Act

Restore the term of “teacher” that was deleted in the 2009 legislative session. This simple deletion has and will create additional protections for teachers who are also defined as veteran’s. The result is that district’s will be required to spend additional time and revenue in the dismissal or unrequested leave process for these teachers. Teachers already have significant protections under M.S. 122A.40. This additional requirement will impact the ability of the school district to reduce staff to balance its budget because of the extended time line offered under the veteran’s preference act. See Chapter 94.

Amend: Reinstate term “teacher” in M.S. 197.46.

11). 205A.12 Subd. 7 Election Districts

Allow school districts an option to go from election districts to at-large seats by passing a resolution with 2/3 majority.

Amend to allow districts this choice.