Education Minnesota's Real Problem

Today's debate on MPR's Midmorning took an interesting turn. For the first time that I can recall in this election cycle, a candidate chose to call out a specific person outside of the elections as the poster child of the problems our schools face. Who was this newly appointed poster child?


Tom Dooher
courtesy Education Minnesota

This morning Tom Emmer decided to name names and in doing so publicly declared that the problem in our educational system is Tom Dooher.

Blaming the union isn't anything new. Especially during elections, pointing to an alleged source of the problem is much easier than finding solutions for extremely complex problems. But this is the first time I've heard a candidate try to pin the state's problems specifically on the president of the state's largest educators' union. Emmer literally said "I think the union boss, Tom Dooher, is the problem."

Dooher sent MPR the following response:

"There is no place in the debate about education for personal attacks. The futures of our students and state are at stake and all Minnesotans deserve better.

Education Minnesota has vowed repeatedly to work together with anyone who is truly interested in improving education in our state. Minnesota’s biggest challenge in education is eliminating the achievement gap. Education Minnesota proposed a detailed plan in the last legislative session that relied on research-proven methods to help struggling students learn. We proposed bringing health, nutrition and dental services directly into the schools. We proposed smaller class sizes, longer school days or longer schools years when appropriate, as well as new methods of evaluating the performance of teachers.

Personal attacks do nothing to solve the broken system of education funding in Minnesota. Our state  is now well below the national average when it comes to per pupil spending. These are the kinds of true education challenges that get masked or ignored when politicians resort to personal attacks instead of policy solutions to deal with our problems.

It is the responsibility of Education Minnesota to stand up for what teachers know will work in the classroom. We will continue to champion research-proven methods that will improve Minnesota’s many excellent public schools. And we’ll continue to speak out against meaningless policy changes and gimmicks that serve political purposes but do nothing to help children learn.”

I don't think that the union is perfect by any means, but I also don't think they are the beast that is standing in the way of improving our state's schools. And Emmer's comments do little to actually address the challenges in our educational system. Tom Dooher is correct that many of the proposed educational reforms have not shown proven results and he does well to point out the types of initiatives they've been supporting. Yet, I do think that Education Minnesota does have one major problem. A PR problem.

In the past few years, many stalemates on educational policy in the legislature have been blamed on Education Minnesota. They've been maligned in political press conferences as the roadblock to real solutions. My issue with the union is that I often don't feel that they do enough to portray the positive work they do to find new solutions to improve education in our classrooms. Their opponents have been winning the PR battle and as such many in the public now believe that the union's primary mission is to ensure that your school has bad teachers who are overpaid and don't care about students at all.

In the interest of full disclosure, I came to this belief due to my experiences growing up in a family that contained a number of public school educators including a few that also worked for Education Minnesota. Because of that, I discovered that Education Minnesota provides a number of grants to teachers in order to explore new solutions in their classrooms. Over the years they have funded 915 projects through grants totaling $2.4 million. You can find more information on these projects here. There's a great story from WCCO this past spring about how a teacher used one of these grants to design a new type of desk to help her students stay focused in the classroom. These desks have gained a lot of attention throughout the world and the story was also featured in the New York Times.

Ironically, the grants cover everything from early education intervention, classroom behavior management, student learning methods, mentoring, better engaging kids in science, and so on. Many of these are the very issues that Emmer himself suggests we need to invest in.

 In my opinion, it may be in the best interest of Education Minnesota to highlight more of these projects publicly and in doing so start to peel the target of their back.

Emmer Goes All In

Today Tom Emmer released the final part of his budget proposal. I've been wondering for some time now about previous claims he's made to cut anywhere from 10-20% of state spending without doing major damage to programs that many people hold dear such as education and health & human services. Today I got my answer. He's not. He's deemed himself the "only straight talking candidate" and today that straight talk included straight up telling people that if he is elected, they will see major funding cuts in higher education (-$300M), local government aid (-$550M), and state agencies (-$550M) as well as big reduction in the amount of growth allowed in health and human services.

I'm not going to lie. It took me awhile to pick my jaw up off the floor upon seeing his plan. Even though the numbers are there, it is still lacking in specifics as to how exactly he is going to reach those numbers. And as the saying goes, "the devil is in the details."

K-12
Although he promises to hold K-12 education funding "harmless" by providing them the same amount of money they are currently getting, I don't know if doing so would really qualify as harmless. Schools are currently faced with underfunded mandates as well as increasing costs for transportation, maintenance, etc. It's questionable to say that failing to keep up with the cost of inflation is harmless. Also, some schools have had to borrow funds to make up for the funding shift they experienced last session. Emmer won't begin to pay that back until 2014.

Higher Education
 The funding for higher education will decrease by $300 million under Emmer's plan. He says they will focus on redesigning and reforming the system but gives no specifics to what those reforms will be. Based on previous claims he made, one option may be making some community college locations industry specific (i.e. a nursing school, a teaching school, etc.) but I don't know what else he would include.

Health and Human Services
The amount of allowed growth is greatly reduced. (Will that mean enrollment caps?) He will "refocus spending" (aka take it from other programs) to nursing homes and children's mental health. He promises to redesign GAMC and Minnesota Care and ultimately find private market alternatives for those programs. (I wonder how this will work because many people on these programs are not eligible for others and most cannot afford current private market options.)

Local Government Aid
LGA will see a $550M reduction in funding and what it does get will be solely for public safety and infrastructure. (Many believe the natural result of such drastic cuts will be rising property taxes since small rural cities have few other options to try to recoup such losses.) There is a mention of reforms to lessen the burden these communities have from the state government but again offers no specifics as to what those reforms would be.

State Agencies and Spending
One more area that will see a $550M reduction in funding. The plan says "An Emmer administration will focus on reorganizing bureaucracies and programs which are not fundamental to state government’s mission; merging agencies to streamline decision making and reduce costs; reduce the government workforce through attrition and early-retirement." Loosely translated, he will merge departments, eliminate departments, and get rid of state employees by declining to replace those that leave and pushing others into early retirement.

Bonding Bills
Bonding bills will be only for critical issues like floods or infrastructure.

It's hard to say exactly what some of these cuts will look like until he releases further details on exactly what programs will be affected in some of these areas (other than to say they will be extremely painful for many Minnesotans.) But looking at this my first impression is that for a candidate that is promising a "new direction" it certainly looks to me like he is following Gov. Pawlenty's lead of preventing any potential tax hikes on the wealthy by eliminating funds from programs that serve mainly the poor, middle class, and sick in our state.

Tom Horner: Just Another Spoiler or Viable Candidate?

This Sunday's Star Tribune had two very interesting articles that pose larger questions about exactly what role Tom Horner will play in the upcoming election and the viability of a third party candidate in the state of Minnesota.

The first looks at the fact that some in the business community, a community that usually loyally lines up behind Republican candidates, have been showing support for Horner. Reasons cited include the fact that Tom Horner works in PR and has good relationships with many businesses, the fact that he used to work in the GOP, and most pointedly, the fact that unlike Tom Emmer, he has released a comprehensive budget plan. Some business owners quoted in the article state that that is what a good CEO would do and they can't throw their support behind Emmer without those details.

Obviously this is no done deal. Emmer still holds a 100% rating on voting with the interests of the National Federation of Independent Businesses. And regardless of how much people may like Tom Horner and his plans there is always that lingering fear that a vote for a third party candidate will actually help to elect the candidate you prefer least. Horner himself alluded to that fear during the MPR State Fair debate in his closing statements when he said that "bold leadership starts with bold voters." So when it comes to that issue, the question is whether they like Horner more than they fear Mark Dayton and his plans. That is likely to factor into many people's votes. It always has when consideration of a third party is in play. It's the nature of a "two party system."

In other years and in other states this may not be much of a concern. But there are valid reasons that this is garnering so much attention this election. The first is that recent Minnesota history includes the election of Jesse Ventura. His unexpected and narrow victory on the gubernatorial ticket in 1998 in many ways changed how we view third party candidates. While they still don't usually gain a very large portion of support, they are definitely not overlooked.

The other reason is that this year seems to be the year of third party candidates. Due to the growing discontent with legislative deadlock, the rise of the Tea Party, and the ease of reaching out to voters with less funds via social networking and other online options, third party candidates are getting buzz all over the country. Smart Politics recently reported that their analysis shows that third party candidates are on track to have their strongest showing in the past 75 years since the Great Depression. Many, including Horner, are polling in the double digits. If they can maintain their current level of support they are sure to have a strong showing at the polls.

The second Star Tribune article that caught my eye was in the opinion pages. Although they are not yet ready to make an endorsement, the section featured a front page editorial about why Tom Horner deserves a closer look and the Minnesota gubernatorial race should be considered a true three candidate race.

The Emmer camp claims they have no concerns about Horner gaining supporters that would have usually been theirs. (Not that it would be good campaign strategy to admit if they did.) "Spoiler" candidates from third parties have generally been viewed as a vote that helped the Republicans win. Many third party platforms focus on the environment, social services, and other issues that are generally considered more liberal and thus seen as taking some of their votes. That has shifted with the surge of Libertarian and Tea Party movements. This year has many wondering if Horner would play out as a spoiler for the Repulicans. The Star Tribune article about the business vote points to the fact that this is already happening on a small scale. But can it grow to the point that it will not only erase any chances of an Emmer victory but see Tom Horner walk away with one? Large questions still linger about that. But regardless of how it plays out, it's adding a very interesting dynamic to the Governor's race.

**Update: This morning former Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson announced his endorsement of Tom Horner.

Tightrope Walking

Earlier this election season, I heard a number of Republican attacks that referred to Mark Dayton as a "trust fund baby." It wouldn't have caught my eye so much if not for the fact that I'd also just seen an official GOP video warning people of Mark Dayton's intentions to "empty the trust fund."

It made me wonder how they'd be able to balance trying to appeal to the most wealthy citizens of Minnesota while denouncing Dayton's wealth. It seemed like a tightrope act that I wouldn't be eager to attempt.

Here's where it gets tricky: how do you maintain an argument that simultaneously defends one's right to a trust fund and demonizes another for possessing one?

It continued today with accusations that Dayton is holding out of state trust funds in order to avoid state taxes. Dayton says they are using old data and that he currently has no offshore accounts. He points to his 2009 income tax forms as proof. (For the record he is the only major party candidate to release his income tax forms so far.)

Which, using current Republican claims, may raise an even more interesting question...I've attended/watched/listened to a number of debates so far this season and on more than one occasion I've heard Tom Emmer specifically state that when Dayton is talking about taxing people who make $150,000 or $170,000 in taxable income, he's talking about the middle class. (An interesting claim in a state where the median household income tends to be about $50,000.) So since Mark Dayton's adjusted gross income last year was $172,475, does that mean that the "trust fund baby" is actually just a middle class Minnesotan?

The MPR State Fair Debate Recap

On Friday MPR hosted a gubernatorial debate with Mark Dayton, Tom Emmer, and Tom Horner. Let me just say first of all, that if we could only start taxing not answering questions Minnesota would be looking at a budget surplus.

I attended the debate, but don't feel like I gained a lot of new information. I just listened to the radio broadcast again to make sure I didn't miss anything, but still feel like it was a bit of a chaotic debate that didn't do much to provide voters with more specifics. (If you'd like to listen to the debate yourself, you can do so here.) I was surprised at the number of very vocal Tom Emmer supporters in the crowd, complete with "Emmer for Governor" hockey jerseys. (That apparently will set you back $200 each.) They had held an anti-tax rally at the Fair that morning prior to the debate and moved to Carousel Park for the 11am debate. I wonder if that is part of the reason why Tom Emmer seemed to try to tie every answer he gave back to taxes or smaller government.

This wasn't a great debate. I usually like Gary Eichten and think he does a good job with interviews. However, as the moderator, the candidates walked all over him. They took jabs at each other, got way off topic, avoided answering certain questions, and just asked each other questions rather than further discussing the topics on hand.

In case anyone is interested or you missed it, let me just give you a quick rundown of the debate and my impressions.

The Deficit
It started off with a discussion of Minnesota's budget deficit. Emmer quickly answered that we don't have a deficit. He cited that the state spent $30B and coming revenues are expected to be $3B  higher. His numbers here are not wrong. That being said, they are quite misleading. I won't go into all the specifics here. Lori Sturdevant did a great break down of this issue in last week's Sunday Star Tribune that would highly encourage you to read. Basically, the state did spend around $30B, but due to one time discounts in play they actually bought around $34B worth of services. Horner pointed this out and reminded Emmer that he's not accounting for the money that the state borrowed that will need to be paid back. From there it simply became an argument in which Dayton and Horner both defended the need for new revenues and Emmer saying that wasn't the answer and his plan would work for all Minnesotans. The only problem is that the Emmer campaign hasn't released a specific plan. Horner was quick to remind him of that and at that point, less than 10 minutes into the debate, it digressed into bickering between the two that included some wild accusations about taxing garage sales and kids who mow lawns. That pretty much set the tone. I'll try to sum up the major points.Most answers dealt with taxes and the economy (even when the question itself really didn't).

Federal Healthcare Reform Grants
Dayton and Horner both agreed that Pawlenty shouldn't just flat out reject all federal healthcare grants and doing so can hurt Minnesota. Emmer declined to directly answer and instead said he hadn't read it and what Pawlenty does is for Pawlenty.

Clean Water
Horner said the governor needs to listen to the DNR about clean water issues. Dayton says the agencies need better commissioners so they do their job. Emmer says the problem is "too much government."

Minnesota's Economic Woes
To help the economy, Dayton said it would be a challenge but proposed a strategy that could include a bonding bill, an energy plan to retrofit old buildings, educational investments, and a Vikings stadium to create jobs. He also proposed lowering property taxes and streamlining government (without specifics on that). Emmer says that government is "literally suffocating the private economy." He proposes reducing government, taxes, and regulations (didn't say which ones) and streamlining government to allow people to grow. Horner says he is the only one with an actual plan that includes eliminating taxes on business equipment, integrating higher education programs with local economies, streamlining government, expediting permit processes, expanding broadband, investing in higher education institutions' research, and providing resources to local communities.

Closing Higher Education Institutions
When asked if they think some higher education institutions should be closed, Dayton said "no" and that they are a great asset to their local communities in greater Minnesota. Horner said that a year that will bring a new University president, a new MNSCU chancellor, and a new governor would be a great opportunity to sit down and evaluate what we need from our schools and how to get it. Everything would be on the table. Emmer said the question should really be whether we need all the programs each campus offers and suggested specialized campuses to certain programs. He also said we should work to lower administration costs. A rare agreement for him and Dayton.

Bullying
When asked if they would sign anti-bullying legislation, Horner and Dayton both said that they would. Dayton said "We need to make it clear. Not in our schools. Not in our city. Not in our state." Emmer said he'd "have to see it first." (There have been a number of proposed anti-bullying bills in the MN Legislature in recent years. Since Rep. Emmer has been serving there I assume he has some familiarity with them.) He said it was an issue for parents, not government.

School Referendums and a Whole Bunch of Unrelated Issues
Of all the questions in the debate, this one went the furthest off track and I think this is a prime example of where the moderator needed to step in. An audience member asked if the candidates would allow school boards to renew operating levy referendums without voter approval. Horner said yes with some limitations, as long as it is a straight renewal. Dayton said yes as long as it was renewal of a previously voter approved referendum and pointed out that we need to improve our school funding so that they don't need to keep relying on referendums. That is when the train went off the track. Rather than answering the question, Tom Emmer told the audience that Mark Dayton was going to raise their taxes to 17 or 18%. Dayton said Emmer needed a plan. Emmer said raising taxes on those with a taxable income of over $150,000 would "hammer the middle class" and demanded to know what the limit would be as to how high Dayton would go. Dayton said he'd keep it under 11% and then pointed out that Emmer would reduce funding for LGA and K-12. Emmer denied that and said that he is fine with local government aid as long as it only goes for essential services which he defined as police, fire, water, and sewer. Horner then chimed in saying that his tax plan has guards against "regressivity." Dayton joined in the childish games and then wanted to know why people making a half a million or a million dollars shouldn't pay even one dollar more in taxes, stating the question repeatedly when the others didn't answer him. That was the point where Tom Horner's patience ran out and he exclaimed frustratedly "That's not  your plan!" followed by the claim that a nurse and a teacher make $150,000 (Many in the crowd booed that.)  and that $150,000 in income is not $150,000 in wealth. Emmer than made what I think will be the hardest campaign promise to keep that if he is elected, no one's taxes will go up and he'd actually reduce taxes for everyone. There was little order to that part of the debate. It was like a bunch of ideological clowns piling out of the political car.

Vision for Minnesota
Dayton's vision for Minnesota included making taxes fair, balancing the budget, cutting spending, and investing in education which he said is key to the future. He said that investing in education, keeping tuition affordable, and investing in early education would help lead our state to greater job growth. Emmer said that Minnesotans are sick of people pointing the finger at others. He said "We're about articulating the vision we have for this state." (An odd argument in a debate in which he often used the phrase "When we release our plan") In response to Dayton's answer of investing in key areas, he said that we can't invest what we don't have and said we need to bring back jobs to Minnesota. Horner said that the governor sets the tone. He must be honest and build consensus, not drive wedges. He said he's willing to be a lightning rod and take the hit for decisions on tough issues. In a veiled swipe at Pawlenty he said that for him to be governor is not a stepping stone, but a capstone in his career.

"More Taxes =Less Freedom"
A online question said that that was on a billboard near her house and wanted to know what that meant to each candidate. Horner used it as a chance to defend his plan saying that although no one likes taxes, we need reform. He said that everyone should pay their fair share and we should invest in Minnesotans from the "cradle to the grave." He proclaimed "We are a great state. We need to build to be an even greater state." Tom Emmer said that the more government takes out of our pockets, the less opportunity we create for ourselves and that a "rising tide lifts all boats." He says we need people with resources to create jobs. Mark Dayton said that government should only take what's necessary to provide services that people cannot provide for themselves and that he was endorsed by the police and fire fighters for that reason.

Playing Well With Others and the Power of the Governor
When asked if they would be able to compromise with other parties, Dayton replied, "Absolutely." He spoke of a sign that hung in Rudy Perpich's office that read "None of us is as smart as all of us" and said he'd put that sign back in his office. He cited the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon campaign as an example of how he did that in the US Senate. Emmer elicited some laughter from the crowd when he responded "Oh, yeah." without hesitation. He said he has good relationships with people across the aisle in the MN Legislature and then took a turn off topic by claiming that if elected he would use a power beyond unallotment. He said that the "First things first legislation should be passed first thing. Then in January, the governor could declare a "fiscal emergency" at which point the legislature would have 45 days to produce a balanced budget. Tom Horner cited Jesse Ventura and his cabinet as an example of doing that. He said that you can't find common ground when you insist on only doing things your way. He said that we need to focus on equality, education, and the most vulnerable Minnesotans and that "bold leadership starts with bold voters."

Funding the Court System
Horner says he will and that he has a proposal. Emmer said that it is a priority. Dayton promised to pass on their proposed budget to the legislature exactly as it is submitted.

Final Pleas
Dayton said this election is about our future-education transportation, jobs. He cited his experience and said he can make the government work better when we work together. Emmer thanked a lot of people and said that this election offers a clear choice to do things how we've always done them or go a new way. He said you can choose between "Someone who will take ALL of your money out of you pocket." (A reference to Dayton. Emphasis Emmer's) and someone "who wants to tax the shirt right off your back." (a reference to Horner's proposal to extend sales taxe to clothing) He then said that "We offer a new way." Horner once again said it is about leadership and who you trust. He said he has a clear plan, but needs voters to "be leaders" this November (a reference to the uphill battle of being an Independence party candidate).

That's the debate. Sorry for the length of the post, but I didn't know how else to sum up the chaos. I hope that in the future the debates cover more issues more specifically. I'd like to here more specifics about healthcare, educational funding, how to ensure we have enough public defenders, etc. I am also anxiously waiting for Tom Emmer's campaign to release an actual comprehensive budget plan. With less than two months to go, I'm cautiously optimistic that some of those things will be discussed. You can only listen to the same rhetoric over and over for so long. I hope that we delve into more specifics soon.

Will Tom Emmer Pay Back the K-12 Funding Shift From Last Session?

In the words of the mighty magic 8 ball, "Outlook not so good."


Today I headed out to the MN State Fair for the MPR Gubernatorial debate. I was hoping to be able to get a question in, but it was packed and due to some unforeseen circumstances, I arrived a little late. Even though there have been a good number of debates, so far they have nearly exclusively focused on the economy, jobs, and taxes. Those are all important issues, but there are other things concerning Minnesotans that are not being discussed such as education, clean water, healthcare, the desperate need for more public defenders, etc. Once again, this debate spoke primarily about taxes and jobs. It was a lot of what we've already heard with the exception of a few audience questions about protecting our water, bullying, and whether to close some state higher ed institutions. There wasn't a lot of new information.

After the debate ended, I was leaving when I noticed Tom Emmer departing off to the side of the stage. He was exuberantly shaking hands with a crowd of people in "Emmer for Governor" hockey jerseys and buttons and stopping to pose for photos with them. This went on for about ten minutes, when an older lady walked up to him and introduced herself as a teacher and asked him about his plans for K-12 education. I was curious to hear his answer so I stopped to listen. He put his hand on her arm and talked about how important our schools are and the need to make sure "more money gets to the classrooms." (Although, no specifics were explained as to how he would do that.) I saw my window of opportunity and decided to take it.

As he shook her hand and thanked her, I asked if I could ask a related question. He looked me up and down suspiciously and curtly said "We really don't have time. I need to get going." (I'm pretty certain that he suspected me of being a DFL tracker because I had been filming a few things on my cell phone, which was still in my hand, but not being used.)

"You don't have time for just a single question?" I replied.

He sighed and said "Okay, what is it?"

I told him that I am from a family of educators and that I myself had worked with middle schoolers and that my family was very concerned about educational issues. After that, I point blank asked him, "Are you willing to guarantee that if you are elected governor, the K-12 funding shift will be paid back?"

*Side note: For those who don't know what the K-12 funding shift is, last session the MN state budget was balanced in part on one time gimmicks. One of these was to delay paying out money that was allocated for funding our K-12 public schools in order to balance the budget. Essentially, we took a loan from our schools to balance the books. Schools were told that it would be paid back next session, but due to the coming changing of the guard in the governor's office, there is no real guarantee that that money will be paid back. Although Governor Pawlenty said it would be, the decision to ultimately do so will rest with his successor. I haven't heard anyone yet ask the candidates about it, so I've been curious to try to get some answers from them.*

This was Tom Emmer's response:

"We're going to pay it....well....We can't guarantee anything. [Emphasis his] We're planning on paying it back, but it will be tied to our educational reforms."

"You mean that if the schools want the money that was allocated for them last year, they'll have to agree to whatever reforms you put in place?" I inquired.

"Essentially, yes. It will be tied to our proposed educational reforms." He stated.


At that point he kept moving. I didn't get the "Thank you" or the handshake, but I got my question answered. So for those of you who work in education and have been wondering what Tom Emmer will do about the K-12 shift, under his plan you will get your money back as long as you implement whatever reforms he decides are necessary. I don't know what those would be and am anxious to hear more. To clarify, if he decides that schools need to adopt performance pay, alternative licensure, vouchers, (all items he supports on his campaign website) etc, the schools will not receive the money that the state borrowed back after its allocation unless they agree to abide by those reforms.