Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Title I Allocation Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tribal‑area superintendents urge gap funding after federal Title I allocation switch to census model
Summary
Superintendents from St. John and Minnewakanton told the committee that a recent change to the method for allocating federal Title I funds — from a free‑and‑reduced model to a census‑based model — will cut their districts’ Title I allocations sharply while students being educated in their schools remain open‑enrolled from other districts; they
Superintendents from high‑poverty, tribal‑area districts asked the Appropriations - Education and Environment Division for gap funding after the state’s preliminary Title I allocations moved from a free‑and‑reduced lunch basis to a census model.
Keith LaValley, superintendent of St. John School District No. 3, told the committee the change means Title I federal dollars remain in students’ home (residing) districts rather than following open‑enrolled students to the districts that educate them. LaValley said St. John educates a large share of off‑reservation students and that the district’s projected Title I allocation fell sharply; he said the district faced a projected decrease of about $621,907 under the preliminary recalculation.
Minnewakanton Superintendent Ken Dennis told the committee his district would lose roughly 81% of Title I funding under the new preliminary allocation numbers, falling from about $485,000 to $89,000. He said the district’s Title I per‑pupil allocation would drop from roughly $1,700 to $314 and that those dollars currently pay for staff who run small‑group instruction, a social worker, a preschool program and other services. Dennis said about 270 of his district’s 284 students are open‑enrolled from neighboring reservation areas and that the loss would put eight Title‑funded positions at risk.
Both superintendents asked the legislature to provide gap funding while the state and federal authorities work to reconcile allocation methods or to develop a longer‑term solution; they framed the request as a temporary measure to avoid immediate layoffs and service reductions for high‑need children. Committee members asked clarifying questions about the change in allocation method and the districts’ enrollment and fiscal figures. Lawmakers did not take action on a funding request during the hearing and asked DPI and legislative staff for follow‑up information.
No formal vote or commitment was recorded; the committee requested more data and asked staff to consider possible gap‑funding approaches for affected schools.
