One year ago, Finance Commissioner Pam Wheelock delivered a gleeful report to Minnesotans. "I was here a year ago to tell you we had a boatload of money. Today I'm here to tell you we're busting at the seams."

With that news, our governor successfully passed his agenda of rebate checks and paying for education through sales and income taxes instead of using part of local property taxes. Little did we know we would be dealing with a financial Titanic just months after the governor's legislative victory.

Minnesota's boatload of money is now an immediate deficit of $1.9 billion and a structural deficit estimated at $1.2 billion a year in the next biennium. Since accounting gimmicks and rainy-day funds will barely dent the shortfall, lawmakers will have to increase taxes, cut programs or both.

K-12 education is the largest portion of the state budget, so lawmakers will find it difficult to hold schools harmless if budget cuts are the primary solution. Schools are already so underfunded that a record number of them turned to voters for additional operating funds this fall. Many of the remaining districts will be forced to do the same next year.

However, a crisis prompts people to open their minds and look for new strategies for the same old problems. We have a multibillion-dollar incentive to repair our system of funding education, and that includes discussing -- again -- the wisdom of making public education supported solely through volatile revenues.

The state's ability to invest in education should not be directly related to stock portfolios, how much overtime workers clock or the holiday shopping season. It stretches one's logic to think that the quality of our future work force depends on how many Barbie dolls end up under Christmas trees. Yes, even in the Mall of America state, sales tax revenues can plummet.

What components should be involved in a long-term investment solution? School leaders say:

•School funding must be adequate. Education is labor intensive, today's students have incredible needs and societal expectations are high. Funding must be sufficient to provide the resources necessary for educators to perform the job we demand.

•School funding must be equitable. Not all districts are alike, so funding formulas can't be one-size-fits-all. Some districts need extra support because of the long distances they transport students. Some districts need extra support because a large number of their students don't speak English or live in poverty. Others are property poor and can't pass voter-approved initiatives.

•School funding must be stable. Education revenue can come from a number of sources, but some portion of funding should come from stable or constitutionally guaranteed revenue. Sales and income taxes, as we are learning, are too volatile to provide reliable resources for the state's most important responsibility.

•School funding must be sustainable. Our system of funding must be structurally viable long-term so school leaders can plan and lawmakers can tend to policy without debating quick-fix budgeting solutions each session.

A thoughtfully constructed funding system for public education is the foundation for academic achievement, economic growth and a democratic society. As our lawmakers grapple with this deficit, citizens must urge them to think beyond the next election, look past the next budget forecast and focus on preserving Minnesota's legacy of public education for future generations.

Anderson is executive director of the Minnesota School Boards Association.