Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 2 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Albert Lea School District could get state revenue
But it requires a local levy
Originally published 09:26 p.m., November 17, 2008
Updated 10:34 a.m., November 18, 2008
The Albert Lea School District has an opportunity to receive state desegregation revenue by chipping in some of its own money and joining with nearby school districts to form a desegregation collaborative.
The desegregation revenue come from the Minnesota Department of Education. Local school districts must pony up 30 percent through a property tax levy to receive the other 70 percent, coming from state coffers
The Albert Lea school board on Monday heard a report from Superintendent Dave Prescott. He said Albert Lea would be able to get an additional $92 per student, meaning an estimated $343,896 in revenue. That means the local requirement is estimated to be $103,169, or roughly $6 per year for an average property owner.
“If we don’t put in our contribution, we will miss the big one,” he said.
He said his calculations are based in this year’s students. The actual dollars, if the plan is approved, will be based on next year’s enrollment, determined in October 2009.
Dave Prescott
The school board has until spring to decide whether to pass the property tax levy. It has to send the application to the Minnesota Department of Education by April 15.
However, Prescott wants to get an early sense of whether the school board supports it because it requires developing a desegregation plan for the district and that takes time.
The Austin School District already receives the desegregation revenue. Because of the way the minority numbers work between it and Southland School District, Austin is considered an isolated desegregation district. School districts touching Austin are allowed to seek the state dollars as collaborators. In addition to Austin, Southland and Albert Lea, other districts eligible for the collaboration are Glenville-Emmons, Blooming Prairie and Hayfield.
The term “desegregation” often invokes images of busing students to different schools. There would be no moving students in and out of schools and school districts. This is about curriculum.
If the Albert Lea school board approves the desegregation levy and the state approves the collaboration, the Albert Lea curriculum department would need to develop goals that encourage student understanding of minority culture, interaction with minority children and improve the academic standing of minority students.
Prescott said the funding also can help the school district get the parents of minority students more involved in the education of their children, which will bolster overall school district performance.
Austin has been able to have language translators, for instance. Austin doesn’t teach Spanish in elementary, but it does teach an appreciation for Spanish in kindergarten through second grade and plans to expand it through sixth grade. Albert Lea students aren’t exposed to Spanish until ninth grade.
See the agenda
Click here to see the Albert Lea school board's online agenda.
In other action, the Albert Lea school board:
• Hired the Minneapolis-based law firm Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney to assist the school district as it deals with legislation passed last spring by the Minnesota Legislature dealing with teacher retirement plans, often called 403(b) tax-sheltered annuities. The 403(b) issue likely will become weighty as the school district goes into its next fiscal year.
• Heard a report from five sixth-graders at Sibley Elementary School on a science conference. The students explained projects on robotics, binary numbers, glaciers, fungi, windmills and soda pop. The sixth-graders were accompanied by teacher Ross Williams.
• Approved the bid from Minnesota Elevator of $192,779 to repair two elevators — one at Lakeview Elementary School and one at Brookside Education Center. The repairs will take place next summer. The repairs at Lakeview will be too disruptive to hold summer school there.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?



Comments
Posted by stitch0852 (anonymous) on November 18, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sure, add ANOTHER levy to already overtaxed property owners, many on fixed incomes. It is time to BUDGET what you have and learn that we are not piggy banks that you can take from at will. One day we will be bled dry to the detriment of the entire community.
I would recommend using the plan other schools are considering....reducing extracurricular funds, stopping coach buses (if used) and having students purchase uniforms for band, etc.
There HAS to be a way to resolve budgetary shortfalls without resorting to the property owners EVERY year to "pony up."
This $6 is in addition the the $100+ from 2007's levy, and other increases the county has added to property taxes. $6 by itself sounds cheap, but I guarantee my property bill will rise by a much higher amount than this, just as it rose more than $136 from last year!!! My BUDGET cannot afford it any longer.
Posted by nisperos (anonymous) on December 13, 2008 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think this is an excellent idea and the 30/70 split is hard to beat. In fact, if property is reassessed and values fall, hence revenues, the district may be very thankful indeed to have this money...
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)