Legislative Platform
Unfunded and Underfunded Mandates in Minnesota Schools
Responsibility Without Authority
Across Minnesota, school districts are increasingly held responsible for meeting state-mandated requirements without being given the authority, flexibility, or sustainable funding needed to do so.
This disconnect—responsibility without authority—creates disempowerment at the local level. Administrators and school boards are accountable to students, families, taxpayers, and the state, yet many decisions affecting budgets, staffing, and operations are made far from classrooms.
For rural school districts, where staffing pools are smaller and tax bases are limited, these mandates create disproportionate harm and force difficult tradeoffs that directly affect students.
Below are the highest-priority unfunded and underfunded mandates currently in Minnesota law, listed in order of impact.
1. General Education Formula Funding
Status: Chronically underfunded
Priority: Highest
Recommendation: Fund the gap with increases and unrestricting funding streams
What the mandate requires
The general education formula is the primary funding mechanism for Minnesota schools and supports core instruction, staffing, transportation, and operations.
Why this is a problem
- The formula allowance is approximately 19% behind inflation
- Districts must absorb rising costs for:
- Salaries and benefits
- Transportation and utilities
- Instructional materials and technology
- Rural districts face added pressure due to:
- Smaller tax bases
- Limited economies of scale
Why local control matters
Without adequate foundational funding, local leaders cannot:
- Make long-term staffing decisions
- Maintain consistent programming
- Reduce reliance on local levies and referendums
Local control only works when the foundation is adequately funded.
2. Special Education Cross-Subsidy
Status: Underfunded, with proposed future reductions
Priority: Very high
Recommendation: Maintain the cross subsidy aid, reduce unnecessary requirements
What the mandate requires
Districts are legally required to provide special education services regardless of whether state and federal funding fully covers the cost.
Why this is a problem
- Special education costs exceed available funding
- General education dollars are redirected to cover the gap
- Proposed reductions beginning FY 2028 would:
- Shift more costs to local taxpayers
- Undo progress made in 2023
- Rural districts have fewer options to absorb these costs
Why local control matters
Districts need flexibility to:
- Protect general education programming
- Allocate staff efficiently
- Avoid excessive reliance on operating referendums
Mandated services without sustainable funding force tradeoffs that harm all students.
3. Summer Unemployment Benefits for Hourly School Employees
Status: Unfunded
Priority: High
Recommendation: Repeal
What the mandate requires
School districts reimburse the state for unemployment benefits paid to hourly employees during summer months. Unlike private employers, districts do not carry unemployment insurance—these costs are paid directly using education dollars.
Why this is a problem
- Costs total tens of millions of taxpayer dollars statewide
- Funds provide no direct educational service to students
- Dollars are diverted from:
- Instruction
- Special education
- Staff compensation
Why local control matters
Local districts should be allowed to:
- Design compensation structures that fit their workforce
- Reinvest dollars into summer learning and student support
- Balance wages and benefits locally
Statewide mandates remove the ability to tailor solutions to community needs.
4. Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML)
Status: Unfunded
Priority: High
Recommendation: Repeal and allow voluntary Short Term Disability plans
What the mandate requires
PFML requires school districts to contribute payroll-based funding for employee leave, even though districts already provide leave benefits.
Why this is a problem
- Adds cost without reducing existing benefit obligations
- Increases time away from classrooms during:
- Historic teacher shortages
- High demand for student support services
- Requires additional coverage and substitute staffing
Why local control matters
Districts should be able to:
- Balance leave benefits with staffing sustainability
- Invest compensation dollars where they have the most impact
- Design benefit packages aligned to workforce realities
Uniform leave systems do not reflect rural staffing capacity.
5. Minnesota-Specific Special Education Compliance Requirements
Status: Underfunded
Priority: High
Recommendation: Reduce state compliance to match federal compliance
What the mandate requires
Minnesota imposes special education paperwork and compliance requirements that exceed federal standards.
Why this is a problem
- Educators spend significant time on documentation
- Time is taken away from:
- Direct instruction
- Student services
- Additional administrative staffing is required
- No evidence shows improved outcomes from excess paperwork
Why local control matters
Local districts should be able to:
- Focus accountability on outcomes
- Eliminate redundant documentation
- Allow educators to spend more time with students
Rural districts feel this burden more acutely due to limited staffing.
6. Educator Licensure and Staffing Constraints
Status: Underfunded structural mandate
Priority: Medium-High
Recommendation: Local Flexibility for Tier-4 Licensed Educators
What the mandate requires
Minnesota’s licensure system applies uniform rules statewide regardless of local labor market conditions.
Why this is a problem
- Rural districts have limited applicant pools
- Experienced educators may be lost due to licensure technicalities
- Vacancies result in:
- Larger class sizes
- Fewer electives and CTE offerings
- Program reductions
Why local control matters
Districts need flexibility to:
- Retain effective educators
- Respond to regional workforce realities
- Maintain program stability for students
The Common Thread Forward
Across these mandates, a consistent pattern exists:
- The state sets requirements
- Local districts carry responsibility
- Local leaders lack authority and flexibility
This structure creates disempowerment, inefficiency, and student-level consequences.
A Student-Centered Path Forward
Local administrators and elected school boards are not asking for:
- Lower standards
- Less transparency
- Reduced accountability
They are asking for:
- Fully funded mandates
- Flexibility in implementation
- Trust in local professionals closest to students
Students are best served when decisions are made as close to the classroom as possible.