K-3 Literacy Bill
A recent study conducted by the Reserve Bank of Minneapolis found that the state’s achievement gap is among the worst in the entire nation and that disparities are evident across race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.
As part of a push by House Republicans to address the achievement gap, I introduced House File 4065, a bill to prioritize literacy for students in grades K-3 by screening students three times per year, providing research-based intensive intervention for students and additional professional development for K-3 teachers to ensure best practices are used for all students.
A scientifically-based literacy program is the most effective means to improve literacy and reduce the achievement gap and this approach is working well in other states. It is also working well here in Minnesota, as Groves Academy’s Literacy Partnership Program is currently demonstrating in pilot programs with 30 schools.
According to the National Assessment for Education Progress (NAEP), neither Minnesota’s 4th and 8th grade reading scores, nor our achievement gap, have made much progress since 1998. Indeed, some scores have declined, despite spending $103.4 billion since 2003. This is a conservative estimate of state funding and doesn’t include local tax dollars also spent (A full comparison from 1998 wasn’t possible as there were significant changes in the formula between 1998-2003).
Minnesota students can’t afford to wait any longer – 22 years of little to no measurable progress is enough time to know what we are currently doing is not working. Kids who can’t read at grade level do not do well in other areas of academic achievement. Literacy is the key that unlocks learning and success later in life.
I have requested a hearing for this bill in the House Education Policy Committee and am hoping we can get a hearing before the March 20th deadline.
Rep. Robbins and House Republicans hold press conference on bills to address the achievement gap in Minnesota.
Flawed Paid Leave Program
On Thursday, House Democrats passed their $2 billion tax hike on every Minnesota employer and employee to create a new and complex bureaucracy to administer a state-run family leave program. This bill received bipartisan opposition in the House and will not be passed by the Senate. The estimate for the bill is that it would create between 300-400 new full-time equivalent (FTE) state employees when fully implemented, which is larger than the number currently employed by several large state agencies, including the Department of Commerce or the Office of Management and Budget (both of which have much larger responsibilities).
Under this proposal, Minnesota businesses and workers would see their payroll taxes increased, even if they already provide and receive great benefits. If this bill were to pass, employers would have no incentive to continue offering generous benefit plans, and many would likely scale back benefits to match the minimum benefits in this bill.
This state-run “insurance” program would also require the creation of a huge new IT system to track the leave, which could be taken in fractions of a day, as well as the taxes and benefit payments. After the incredible waste of time and millions of dollars on MNSure and MNLARS, I do not think this is a good use of taxpayer dollars. The fiscal note on this proposal states that only between 4% - 6.5% of workers are expected to actually use the program, w Other states that provide paid employee leave programs have it run through their Disability Insurance Program and it is paid by employee’s who opt-in to the system, not by every single employer and employee in the state.
Another huge problem with this proposal is that the current .6% tax would only be in place until July 1, 2023, when benefits start being paid. At that point, the Commissioner of the Department of Economic Development (DEED), has the authority increase the tax without limit or any legislative oversight. If it turns out they have spent millions more than projected to build this complicated system, the Commissioner can simply raise the tax unilaterally. This is a breath-taking abdication of our legislative responsibility to tax and appropriate money. The Executive branch does not have the authority to raise taxes and this unlimited power should not be granted to a Commissioner.
Many employers are already working with employees to come up with benefit packages that meet their needs. For those who are looking for other options, perhaps we should consider other state models that create employee-funded, opt-in plans.
|
