Committee adopts amendment and moves omnibus education bill to general register amid debate over mandate relief and fund transfers

The Minnesota House Education Finance Committee on Tuesday adopted an author's amendment to House File 6 and voted to place the bill, as amended, on the general register after extended testimony and debate over literacy policy, local control and a contested funding-and-mandate‑flexibility provision.

Representative Bennett moved the A2 author’s amendment to House File 6; committee members approved the amendment by voice vote. The committee later voted by roll call to place the bill as amended on the general register, a procedural step that advances the measure toward floor consideration.

House File 6 is structured as three articles. Article 1 focuses on foundational literacy and proposed revisions to the Read Act (the state's statutory literacy framework), including language emphasizing the “science of reading,” an expectation that teachers be prepared to deliver reading instruction grounded in that body of research, and ending a Department of Education partnership with an outside contractor identified in the bill’s text. Representative Baker said the bill seeks to keep the state focused on “foundational literacy skills.” Representative Baker and Representative Mueller described problems districts report with implementation and funding of the Read Act since 2023.

Article 2 would create a clearer, “user friendly” school performance report and establish an education innovation chapter that consolidates and clarifies statutory authorities for local experimental programs, sometimes known as innovation zones. Testimony from Akila Roberson of Education Evolving and other proponents described prior innovation zones and local‑partnered programs as models to expand.

Article 3 drew the most contention. It would (1) allow boards through the 2028–29 fiscal year to transfer district funds between operating accounts, subject to federal limits and with a restriction that transfers not increase state aid or local levies, and (2) permit school boards to delay implementation of certain mandates enacted in the 2023–24 biennium by public resolution. Representative Bennett described the policy as “delays, not repeals,” meant to let school districts stagger implementation and preserve fidelity.

Opponents — including multiple paraprofessionals, Education Minnesota, Minnesota School Boards Association, Education Evolving, Minnesota Community Education Association, and MDE staff — warned the Article 3 language would roll back worker protections enacted in 2023, reduce transparency, and risk undermining programs intended to stabilize the education workforce. Testifiers said state actions in 2023 expanded paid family and medical leave, earned sick and safe time, paraprofessional paid training, and unemployment insurance for hourly school workers; several paraprofessionals and school support professionals testified that those earlier changes improved retention and continuity for students.

Kristen Scott, a special education paraprofessional, said unemployment insurance “helps me bridge the gap in the summer so that I can come back in the fall and do the important job of helping your children thrive.” A bus driver, Kat Briggs, described year‑to‑year continuity with drivers as crucial for students and noted summer unemployment and route schedules affect staffing. Education Minnesota attorney Meg Luger Nikolai said the language would allow districts to reallocate “dedicated revenue” without legislative oversight and risk “pulling the rug out from under voters.”

Adosh Ooni, director of government relations for the Minnesota Department of Education, told the committee MDE has “serious concerns” about the fund‑transfer and mandate‑relief language, warning it could create a patchwork of district practices, hamper oversight and accountability, and complicate MDE’s ability to administer grants and required programs. Ooni also said terminating the department’s contractor partnership on Read Act implementation could require additional MDE staff to carry out the same tasks.

Members offered competing views on whether the bill should be referred to other committees for detailed fiscal or workforce review. Representative Sensimir moved to re‑refer the bill to the Workforce, Labor and Economic Development Committee; that motion failed on a roll call. Representative Bonner moved to send the bill to Ways and Means for fiscal review; that motion likewise did not prevail. After additional procedural motions and discussion the committee approved the A2 amendment by voice and, later, approved placing House File 6, as amended, on the general register by roll call (12 ayes, 11 nays).