As the legislative session winds down, many Minnesota school districts are bracing for one of two difficult scenarios -- either flat or reduced state funding for the next two years.

A provision stripped from the House/Senate K-12 package this week was intended to provide more predictable funding streams for schools in the future. Called the "New Minnesota Miracle," in a nod to groundbreaking state legislation passed in the 1970s, the bill was intended to lay a foundation for school finance reform that would kick in once the state is back on sound financial footing. If elements of the concept are not resurrected this year, they're worth serious discussion during the 2009-10 session.

The first Minnesota Miracle brought more fairness and equity to school funding by picking up a greater share of education expenses. But since then, different administrative philosophies on state spending and economic downturns have chipped away at that state support, placing more of a burden on local property taxes. In turn, more districts have been forced to mount expensive levy campaigns to fund basic school operations.

Several changes outlined in the current proposal would have addressed those problems. One would have simplified the school funding formula by counting students regardless of grade as one pupil unit, replacing the current practice that assigns different weight to kindergarten, elementary and secondary students. That reallocation of funds would have provided more state dollars for all-day kindergarten and other early learning programs.

The proposal was designed to provide local property tax relief -- replacing a portion of school funding now raised through local levies by requiring the Legislature to honor its 2003 promise that the state would pick up a larger part of the K-12 bill.

Minnesota currently spends about $14 billion per biennium to educate its 840,000 public school students. Under the plan, basic per pupil aid would increase and all-day kindergarten and special education would be fully funded.

The funding increase would have been phased in over the course of six years -- more, if necessary -- and would only begin when the state's financial picture improved. It's important to note that the bill would not simply have driven more dollars to school districts. It recognized that spending is not always the answer and would have required districts to spend a portion of their state aid on research-based, proven methods to boost student performance.

An overhaul of the education funding system in this state is overdue. The bill would have continued the work started when Gov. Tim Pawlenty's K-12 finance task force convened in 2003. During the past several years, P.S. Minnesota, a coalition of 24 parent and education groups, including the Association of Metropolitan School Districts, examined the previous research and developed the framework for the funding reform plan.

With effective budget reform, Minnesota school districts should have a solid funding base from the state, allowing them to focus on the most important goal: providing outstanding education. It's time lawmakers consider new, more effective ways to invest in Minnesota's schoolchildren.

No one would argue that the state is in any position to start picking up the tab today, but in the future, once the economy improves, it is worthy of consideration.