From our perch in Summit, South Dakota, we watching a robust debate about the impact of a "metro-Greater Minnesota" divide being used to frighten voters in the DFL primary; it's not much different from the pre-convention argument about the electability statewide of Democratic candidates statewide.
It's up to primary voters to judge the merits of this bugaboo, just as the endorsing convention delegates were called to do.
Perhaps a more interesting discussion might center around the policy consequences of a placebaiting frame--and the split of bonding money for school safety is as good a starting place as any. Back in May, MinnPost's Erin Hinrich reported in Minnesota school funding: What just happened?:
When asked what he was most disappointed about at the press conference Wednesday morning, Dayton singled out the inability of state leaders to work out a deal on funding for school safety. He then placed the blame squarely on his Republican colleagues, for trying to use the school safety package as a bartering chip. “I implored them to send me a school safety bill as a separate bill,” he said.
In a press conference later that afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka pushed back on that narrative and made a plea to salvage what little bit of school safety money is still awaiting approval.
"Safe and secure schools — we all talked about the importance of that. Large funding in two of those bills — gone,” he said. “I hope [Dayton] passes the bonding bill because that has another $25 million for safe schools. I hope he at least passes that."
The $25 million included in the bonding bill would be distributed to schools via grants — up to $500,000 per school district, with the total evenly split between metro and rural districts. Schools could use these funds to cover the costs of new or enhanced facility improvements for safety.
Governor Dayton signed the bill, despite his reservations about using the state's Budgeted Reserves, established to protect Minnesotans from future economic downturns (page 3 of letter), to pay for the measures. Hinrichs reported more accurately in Minnesota schools just got $25 million to improve 'facility security.' Here's what that means, and why it may do little to make students more secure:
As spelled out in the bonding bill, the one-time state allocation of $25 million to address school safety will be awarded to districts that apply for funding. Districts may apply for a maximum of $500,000 for each qualifying school building, to cover “improvements related to violence prevention and facility security.”
The bill doesn’t spell out any specific examples, but qualifying items might include things like bullet-proof glass, metal detectors, door locks and security cameras. These dollars cannot be used to fund any type of personnel — whether that be school police officers or school psychologists.
The funds will be administered by the state Department of Education. But the commissioner of education must consult with the Minnesota School Safety Center, which is housed within the state Department of Public Safety’s division of homeland security and emergency management, prior to awarding any grants. The grants will be awarded on a first-come, first-served basis, with at least half of the grants reserved for rural districts.
At a press conference held Wednesday morning, Dayton told reporters that this funding for school safety “was certainly a consideration” in his decision to sign the bonding bill. But he also expressed frustration over the fact that the school safety measures aren't funded with surplus dollars. Rather, it draws funds from the state’s budget reserve fund.
The tactic of addressing school safety concerns by investing a one-time money into things like security hardware and equipment and infrastructure issues is nothing new, says Kenneth Trump, a leading school safety expert who has been consulting with schools across the nation for more than 30 years. And while security hardware and equipment can be a helpful tool, he cautions it’s “only as strong as the weakest human link behind it.”
But there's more.
Now, the Minnesota Department of Education uses the familiar "metro" definition of seven counties when it shares data, but not so the bill or new law. Instead, it's an eleven-county metro area defined by the Minneapolis-Saint Paul-Bloomington, MN Metropolitan Statistical Area in 2009 (though there's a new definition from 2013 [page 3] that also includes Le Sueur, Mille Lacs and Sibley Counties.
As it is, the 2009 "metro" is Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Sherburne Washington and Wright Counties. This definition makes both Speaker Kurt Daudt and US Senate candidate Jim Newberger "metro" lawmakers--as well as putting their district's schools into the metro funding pool.
This may have consequences.
Bluestem was curious how many of Minnesota's K-12 students lived in each of the "metro" and "Greater Minnesota," suspecting that much more money would be available per pupil in the "rural" areas than in the "metro." We reached out to Minnesota Department of Education Communications Director Josh Collins for some number crunching.
According to data supplied [ Download 2017-2018 Enrollment by Ethnicity_Gender (3)] by Collins, 884,852 students enjoy K-12 schooling in Minnesota. Of those learners, 548,858, or 62 percent, are in the 11-county metro area, while 38 percent people the Greater Minnesota districts. If the legislature had used the seven-county "metro" definition, only 487,152 or 55 percent, would have been in the urban money pool.
While it might look as if far more money is available for fewer students in Greater Minnesota schools, it's worth noting that the $500,000 limit isn't per district, but per building. We'll be curious how far this reserve cash goes--and to which districts.
Are Minnesota students being protected? Or is the funding formula mere virtue signaling for those riding the unexamined placebaiting strategy?
More importantly, this "tactic of addressing school safety concerns by investing a one-time money into things like security hardware and equipment and infrastructure issues" might not do the trick. Certainly, there need to be more done toward addressing the issue that merely letting lawmakers say they're bringing home some bacon for school safety.
Thousands of Minnesotans tried to share other ideas about school safety with lawmakers, but their voices were rarely reflected in the legislative discourse. But let's argue about that rural-metro divide some more. That'll help.
Images: Some regions in Minnesota will get more of their share of money (top); What's metro, anyway? (bottom).
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
Comments