State Superintendent outlines K‑12 budget priorities, highlights data modernization and reading reforms

Kirsten Baesler, North Dakota Superintendent of Public Instruction, told the Senate Appropriations Committee that House Bill 10‑13 is best understood as the K‑12 education appropriation bill, covering the student aid foundation formula, the Department of Public Instruction’s operations and several state education institutions and services.

Baesler opened by describing the department’s scope: 83 DPI staff, 168 school districts and roughly 135,115 students statewide. “My name is Kirsten Baesler. I'm the State Superintendent for the Department of Public Instruction,” she said when introduced.

Why it matters: the committee received an overview of how funding is delivered to local districts, program priorities that state dollars support, and the metrics DPI uses to measure progress — information the Appropriations Committee will use as it considers House Bill 10‑13.

Major program priorities and outcomes

- Delivery and scale: Baesler said roughly 98% of House Bill 10‑13 would be delivered to school districts, with about 2% for DPI’s agency operations (roughly $58 million on the agency side in the current numbers she showed). - Student outcomes: Baesler highlighted improvements in the “choice‑ready” metric that counts readiness for college, work or the military; she reported gains from a baseline near 21% (2015) to about 71% for recent graduates. - Reading strategy: Baesler described the state’s phased adoption of the “science of reading” instructional approach and ongoing professional development for teachers; she said the approach was piloted in 2019 and expanded with legislative support in 2021 and 2023. - Workforce strategies: Baesler reported nearly 280 participants in teacher apprenticeship and “Grow Your Own” programs, a state effort meant to improve teacher supply in rural districts and convert paraprofessionals into licensed teachers. - Federal ESSER spending: Baesler said DPI distributed roughly half a billion dollars in ESSER (federal pandemic relief) to districts from 2020 through the closeout in December 2024 and reported no audit findings related to those distributions.

Funding structure and the formula (school finance officer Adam Tesher)

Adam Tesher, DPI school finance officer, walked the committee through the state school aid worksheet and the mechanics of the funding formula. He explained the formula steps using a sample district (South Heart):

- Average Daily Membership (ADM): funding uses prior‑year ADM as the starting point and includes weighted adjustments for special education, English language learners, summer school and other factors. - Small‑district weighting and virtual students: the formula applies a sliding small‑district weighting factor that increases the per‑pupil weight for small districts; virtual‑school students are excluded from that small‑district weight for the weighting calculation. - Per‑pupil rate and transition minimums: Tesher showed the per‑pupil rate in the worksheet example at about $11,072. Transition minimums — an historic hold‑harmless mechanism from previous formula changes — are being phased out; the legislature has scheduled the final phase‑out so that by the next biennium all districts will be on the formula. - Local contributions and state aid: the worksheet converts local revenue (property taxes and certain “in lieu of” payments) into a local contribution and the state makes up the remainder as state aid. Tesher said the funding formula’s current statewide pattern yields the state covering roughly 75% of the formula amounts (the percentage moves when federal funds are included).

Committee questions and clarifications

Senators pressed DPI on assessment alignment and comparisons with the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); Baesler said North Dakota’s state assessment has been closely aligned with NAEP and that other states sometimes adjust cut scores to change apparent proficiency rates. Senators asked about use of per‑pupil increases for teacher pay; Tesher said increases are delivered to districts and local boards decide spending, though previous sessions have included statutory language requiring that a portion of “new money” be used for non‑administrative compensation.

Background and revenue mix

Baesler and Tesher gave the funding breakout DPI tracks: approximately 25% state general funds, 66% federal funds (largely for grants and federal programs), and 9% special funds in the K‑12 budget picture they provided. Baesler emphasized DPI’s relatively small agency operating budget compared with funds passed through to districts and explained the agency’s role in standards, assessment administration and approvals mandated under statute (Baesler cited North Dakota Century Code provisions governing the superintendent’s duties).

Ending

The committee will follow DPI through division and full committee hearings; fiscal staff will provide district‑level worksheets and comparisons between executive and House positions before hearings. DPI told the committee it will provide additional granular data on outcomes, workforce supports and the K‑12 data modernization effort.