Permanent School Fund AmendmentConstitutional amendment · Put on the ballot by lawmakers
School Fund Payout Change
Explain it like I'm 5
Minnesota has a giant savings jar for public schools. This would let schools take out a bigger, steadier amount each year, while trying to keep the jar useful for future students.
Yes vote
Changing the constitution to permit annual payments based on up to 4.5% of the fund's three-year average value, beginning July 1, 2027.
No vote
Keeping the current rule that generally allows schools to receive only the fund's net interest and dividends while preserving the principal.
The question to ask yourself
Do you favor giving schools more money now from the permanent fund, or keeping stricter limits to protect future distributions?
The case for
- It could provide more money for schools without raising income or property taxes.
- A three-year average could make payments steadier when investment markets rise and fall.
- Supporters say the change better balances current school needs with preserving the fund's purchasing power.
Backed by: Vote Yes for MN Students, Education Minnesota, Minnesota School Boards Association, Minnesota Association of School Administrators, Association of Metropolitan School Districts, Minnesota Catholic Conference
The case against
- A higher payout could weaken the fund over time if investment returns are lower than expected.
- Replacing the current strong principal protection gives future lawmakers more control over withdrawals.
- The additional funding may be too small to solve broader school budget problems.
Opposed by: Sen. Zach Duckworth, Center of the American Experiment
- Money
- There is no direct tax increase, and the total added distribution was not consistently estimated in the available sources, so future amounts depend on the fund's value and the final payout rules.
- Don't be misled
- It is misleading to call the money free, because the amendment would change how much of an existing public fund is distributed rather than create new revenue.