Editorial: A state of haves and have-nots

A majority of the 99 Minnesota school districts that asked voters for more money this week were successful: About 67 percent of the districts passed at least one of the levy questions that appeared on Tuesday's ballots. That will give many of them financial breathing room to avoid major staff and program cuts -- for now.

But those successes, along with the levy failures of other districts, highlight the need for the state to fund a higher percentage of K-12 education. School systems that received additional dollars may stave off big staff and program cuts for the next year or two. However, if the state fails to fund them adequately in the future, they'll be asking voters for more in short order.

As for the 32 districts where voters just said "no" this week, reductions are on the horizon. Robbinsdale school leaders, for example, expect to cut staffing and close a school because of their failed levy.

Simply put, this is no way to finance basic public education. Schools should not have to put up such large portions of their operating budgets for staff, programs and materials to a vote every few years. No other level of government places 15 to 30 percent of its budget on the line in that manner. It's wrong for schools to be targets for those who view their votes as protests against higher taxes in general.

It is also unfair for students and families to receive (or not receive) core school services based on the property tax wealth of the areas in which they live.

Many voters who opposed levy requests are not anti-education. Some are concerned about their own job prospects in an unsettled economy. Others are understandably worried about rising property taxes. That's why polls show that most Minnesotans favor greater state support for education, where costs can be spread out over Minnesota's larger pool of revenue. They expect the state and their elected legislators to take a leadership role on education. Minnesotans say again and again that they want their schools to be among the best in the country.

After Tuesday's results, many of the losing districts will reduce staff or programs and class offerings. School boards with any reserves left will tap those funds -- in some cases to unacceptably low levels. And many districts will start gearing up to ask voters for more next spring or fall.

To stop that cycle, state lawmakers must get serious about school finance reform. The legislative task force that is currently reviewing the issue should develop a better financing plan, then adopt it during the 2008 session.