Minnesota Senate Bill SF1125

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/6/25
• Refer: 2/6/25

Caption

Special education and English learner cross subsidy aid modification by the increase in the Consumer Price Index

Summary

SF1125 would change Minnesota’s school finance formulas for English learner (EL) programs and special education cross-subsidy aid so that both are adjusted upward over time using inflation. For EL revenue, the bill increases the per-pupil dollar amounts beginning in fiscal year 2027 and then, starting in fiscal year 2028, ties the EL cross-subsidy factor to annual inflation growth, with a cap of 80 percent. It also keeps the rule that a student stops generating EL aid the school year after reaching the state cutoff score on the commissioner’s English-language assessment. For special education, the bill raises the cross-subsidy reduction aid factor to 50 percent in fiscal year 2027 and then, beginning in fiscal year 2028, indexes that factor to inflation as well, again with an 80 percent cap. The bill is framed as an education finance measure and amends Minnesota Statutes sections 124D.65 and 125A.76. Its effective dates are delayed until fiscal year 2028 for the inflation-indexed provisions, while the interim dollar and percentage increases apply in earlier fiscal years as specified.

Impact

The bill would increase state aid for school districts to offset costs associated with English learner programs and special education, reducing the share of those costs that districts must absorb through their general budgets. By amending the EL revenue formula and the special education cross-subsidy reduction aid formula, it would alter Minnesota’s education finance statutes and likely shift more funding responsibility to the state over time, especially as inflation rises. The practical effect would be to ease pressure on district operating budgets and potentially reduce local cross-subsidization of mandated services for EL and special education students.

Sentiment

Based on the bill’s caption and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be a straightforward funding adjustment proposal rather than a controversial policy change. The framing suggests support for increasing aid to better match rising costs and to address underfunding in two high-need student service areas. No formal opposition, amendments, or recorded vote outcomes are included in the materials provided.

Contention

The main policy issue is fiscal: whether the state should increase aid formulas and tie them to inflation, which would raise state spending and reduce district cross-subsidy burdens. Potential points of contention include the size and timing of the increases, the use of inflation indexing, and the 80 percent cap on the cross-subsidy factors. Stakeholders likely to support the bill include school districts, special education advocates, and English learner advocates; those more concerned about state budget impacts may question the long-term cost growth.