Background/Footnotes: Since 1955, Minnesota families have been able to deduct their education expenditures from their state taxes.[1] Twenty-five years after enactment of the statute that allowed the deductions, a group of Minnesota taxpayers sued in a federal district court contending that the state education tax deduction violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution by providing funds to sectarian institutions.

In 1981, the district court held that the statute was "neutral on its face and in its application and does not have a primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion." The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's opinion in 1982. On June 29, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Minnesota tax deduction in Mueller v. Allen, ruling that the program met a three-part constitutional test established by a previous Supreme Court decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman.[2] The test standards stipulate: "First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.... [F]inally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion.'"[3]

The Mueller case has been a controlling precedent in several other pivotal school choice cases, including the recent Zelman v. Simmons-Harris decision that upheld voucher programs as constitutional. In Zelman, writing for the majority, Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated, "We believe that the program challenged here is a program of true private choice, consistent with Mueller, Witters, and Zobrest, and thus constitutional. As was true in those cases, the Ohio program is neutral in all respects toward religion."[4]

In 1985, Minnesota enacted the Post-Secondary Enrollment Options Act, which enabled public, private, or home-schooled junior and senior high school students to take college courses, with the state's Department of Children, Families, and Learning paying for the tuition and books.[5]

Since 1987, the state has offered a High-School Graduation Incentive Program, which is a "second chance" program for students who are at risk of dropping out or who have dropped out of school. Students enrolled in this program may attend a public school or a nonsectarian private school that has an approved program designed to meet their special needs.[6]

In 1988, Minnesota became the first state to enact statewide interdistrict public school choice for all students.[7] In 1991, it became the first to enact a charter school law, permitting teachers to create and operate up to eight new charter schools.[8]

In his 1996 State of the State address, then-Governor Arne Carlson proposed a voucher program for students from low- and middle-income families in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Brooklyn Center, a nearby suburb. The vouchers' value would have ranged from $500 to $3,000, varying with the families' incomes. The Senate Education Committee defeated the proposal by a voice vote in February 1996.[9]

In 1997, the legislature enacted House File 1, giving Minnesota families with incomes of $33,500 or less a refundable tax credit of up to $1,000 per student, up to $2,000 per family, for education expenses, excluding tuition. The law increased the maximum tax deduction to $1,625 for expenses associated with elementary school education, including tuition, and $2,500 for junior and senior high school expenses.[10] In addition, it eliminated the charter school cap and allocated a $50,000 fund to help charter schools with start-up costs.[11]

Minnesota's charter school law has been amended several times. Under current law, local school boards and colleges and universities may charter schools. The initial term of a charter is up to three years. The Minnesota State Board of Education must approve the charter and serves as an appeals body when a charter is rejected at the local level. Teachers in charter schools must be certified.[12]

In 1998, benefactors Ronald and Laurie Eibensteiner established the KidsFirst Scholarship Fund of Minnesota, which enables low-income students in Minneapolis and St. Paul to attend a school of choice. KidsFirst pays up to 75 percent of tuition expenses, up to $1,500, for students in grades K-8. Funds are matched by Children First America, a $100 million foundation that matches funds raised by residents of the Twin Cities.[13]

In 2001, 300 Minneapolis students applied to attend public schools in suburban districts through a program known as The Choice Is Yours--a voluntary desegregation program that was the result of a lawsuit in which the NAACP argued that students in Minneapolis were not receiving an adequate education as guaranteed by the state constitution. In this program, the state pays for transportation to the schools of choice.[14]

During the 2002 legislative session, H.F. 2586 was introduced to provide vouchers that would have enabled low-income students in schools that had performed poorly for three consecutive years to attend a private school of choice. The vouchers would have been worth the cost of the private school's tuition or the state's average per-pupil expenditure, whichever was less. The bill died in committee.[15]

In 2002, according to a report from the University of Minnesota, 30 percent of the state's secondary students were participating in one of its four public-school choice programs-open enrollment, college dual-enrollment, Second Chance programs, and charter schools. The study found that "Minnesota's public school choice plans have produced many benefits for participating students, as well as for the overall public education system." Researchers recommended both providing more information to families and better oversight.[16]

In February 2003, the Center for School Change at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute hired Mason-Dixon Polling to conduct a review of state residents' opinions on school choice programs. More than 600 residents were polled, and strong support was found for school choice, charter schools, and open enrollment. Of those polled, 75 percent believed "families should have the right to select among various public schools;" 56 percent supported open enrollment (while 32 percent opposed it); and 52 percent supported Minnesota's charter school law (while 21 percent opposed it).[17] The report reveals a shift in public opinion: A 1985 study had found that residents opposed a statewide open enrollment plan by a margin of nearly 2 to 1.[18]

Companion bills to institute educational tax credit legislation, H.F. 301 and Senate File 1419, were introduced in 2003. These bills would allow individuals to take a credit of up to $1,000 for 75 percent of a donation to an organization that awards scholarships to low-income families. No action was taken prior to adjournment in 2003 or 2004.[19]

Another set of companion bills would allow for more state control over private schools. S.F. 760, introduced in 2003 by State Senator Ellen R. Anderson (D-66), and its companion, H.F. 743, introduced by State Representative Mindy Greiling (D-54A), would require private schools that accept students whose parents claim a tax deduction for educational expenses to adhere to state graduation requirements. No action was taken this session or in the 2004 session.[20]

State Representative Barbara Sykora (R-33B) introduced H.F. 1266 to create a state-funded scholarship program for students with disabilities. These "Learning Scholarships" would be worth a district's average per-pupil expenditure or the costs of tuition and transportation to the receiving school, whichever is less. No action was taken on this bill prior to adjournment in 2003 or 2004.[21]

Governor Tim Pawlenty signed S.F. 10 on May 30, 2003, which made "any data collected by a public school on a homeschooling child...'private data.'"[22] The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), a home-school legal advocacy organization, calls the Minnesota law "the best privacy protection in the nation."

In November 2003, the Minneapolis school district released a report projecting that the school system's enrollment could decline from 41,004 students to 32,504 in 2008.[23] The report also indicated that the district has seen 5,500 students transfer in the past five years, which was attributed to the state's strong open enrollment law and charter school system. Many students are transferring out of schools in the city and into suburban schools.[24]

State Senator Julianne Ortman (R-Chanhassen) introduced an education tax credit bill (S.F. 2702) in April. The bill would have allowed parents to take a tax credit for tuition expenses and removed the $2,000 cap on the current tax credit law. S.F. 2702 stalled in the Senate Tax Committee.[25]

A report from the Public Policy Institute released in the spring of 2004 found that about half of state charter schools are out-performing the statewide averages in reading in the state's traditional public schools.[26] According to the report, 12 charters did not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) in 2003, but 43 charter schools did make AYP.[27]

In his FY2006-07 budget proposal, Governor Pawlenty proposed tax credits for corporations that donate to scholarship-granting organizations.[28] Under the plan, corporations would receive a tax refund worth half of their donation (up to $100,000) to an organization granting scholarships to families meeting income eligibility requirements.[29]

Companion bills H.F. 697 and S.F. 736 were introduced in February 2005. H.F. 697 was referred to the House Committee on Education Policy and Reform, and S.F. 736 was referred to the Senate Education Committee. These bills would create a voucher program for students whose families do not earn more than 250 percent of the poverty line. That cap would increase by five percent annually between 2007 and 2011, after which the cap would be abolished.[30] Students using vouchers to attend private schools would have to take state assessments, even if the assessments were not otherwise required by their schools.[31] The House version stalled when the committee voted 15-14 to table the bill.[32] No action was taken on the Senate version before the end of the session.

---