Senate Education Finance Committee
Tuesday, March 4, 2025, 8:30 AM
1200 Minnesota Senate Building

RE: SF 2002 (Clark) – Concerns Regarding Full-Service Community Schools Expansion

Chair and Members of the Senate Education Finance Committee,

I appreciate the intent behind SF 2002 to expand full-service community schools in Minnesota. Providing comprehensive support services for students is a worthy goal, but I have serious concerns about the bill’s funding priorities, accountability measures, and long-term sustainability.

1. Excessive Administrative Overhead

SF 2002 mandates hiring a “Full-Service Community School Initiative Director,” multiple “Site Coordinators,” and establishing a “Community-Wide Full-Service Community School Leadership Team.” While coordination is important, these additional administrative positions risk diverting funding away from direct student instruction. Rather than expanding bureaucracy, resources should prioritize:

• Hiring additional teachers to reduce class sizes
• Enhancing instructional materials and academic support programs
• Expanding direct services that benefit students

2. Lack of Measurable Accountability

While the bill requires a baseline needs assessment, it does not establish specific success metrics to evaluate full-service community schools’ effectiveness. Without clear performance indicators—such as improvements in student achievement, attendance, and post-graduation success—there is a risk of inefficient spending without tangible benefits. Any expansion should include transparent reporting requirements and outcome-based funding allocations.

3. Financial Sustainability Concerns

It remains unclear whether this funding will be ongoing or if schools will face unfunded mandates once initial grants expire. Future budget reallocation could leave schools unable to maintain services, causing disruption to students. Legislators should ensure funding stability before expanding this initiative.

4. Impact on Teacher Workload

Additional administrative roles may increase compliance burdens on educators, pulling them away from direct instruction. Any policy changes should minimize bureaucratic requirements that detract from teachers’ ability to focus on student learning.

5. Parental and Community Involvement

Parental engagement is critical to student success. This bill should clarify how families and local communities will have a say in how funds are used. More flexible funding would allow schools to tailor solutions to their unique needs rather than implementing a one-size-fits-all approach.

6. Equitable Distribution of Funds

Will this funding be allocated fairly across all districts, or will certain schools benefit disproportionately? The state must ensure that resources are distributed equitably to avoid exacerbating disparities in Minnesota’s education system.

Conclusion

Minnesota faces pressing educational challenges, including teacher shortages and declining student performance. It is imperative that any additional funding be directed toward initiatives that directly impact student learning, not administrative expansion. I urge lawmakers to amend SF 2002 to:

• Ensure funds go directly into classrooms
• Establish clear success metrics
• Guarantee long-term financial sustainability
• Minimize administrative burdens on teachers

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Hanke

Mankato Minnesota Parent and Resident