Minnesota is home to close to 900,000 K-12 students. Tens of thousands of them have been locked out of their classrooms for nearly a year. The rest live with uncertainty, too, transitioning mostly to and from hybrid- and distance-learning models at the whims of the Minnesota Safe Learning Plan.
The "plan" was supposed to bring order to public education amid the pandemic. Instead, its arbitrary rules drive confusion and frustration for school officials, parents and students, as well as a burgeoning mental health crisis, growing achievement gaps, academic slide and teacher burnout.
A recent online survey from Let Them Learn MN gauged the concerns of parents, adding fresh evidence to the harm caused by isolation and alternative learning models required by the Safe Learning Plan. Of parents surveyed, 84% are concerned about their children's mental health and academic growth, 80% reported anxiety or signs of depression in their children, 28% said their kids required mental health treatment, 68% said their students experienced lower grades, and 30% had a student failing at least one course.
Beyond surveys, the real science is clear, and the experts agree that schools are safe for students and teachers, particularly given the comprehensive mitigation measures now in place. Distance-learning can and should remain a choice, of course. But if private school students in surrounding states can attend school in person, full time, why can't all students in the state of Minnesota? The time is now for the state to act with a sense of urgency to reopen public schools for all students.
Kyle Christensen, Farmington
The writer is co-founder of Let Them Learn MN.
MINING
Not the whole economy up here
As reported in the Star Tribune at the end of January, U.S. Rep. Pete Stauber has doubled down on his "mining trumps everything else" dogma. While it is historical fact that the mining of high-grade iron ore stimulated the economy of Minnesota's Eighth District during the early 20th century, that industry has suffered many geologic and technologic setbacks since. Instead of iron or taconite, however, he is now promoting efforts by foreign-owned mining companies to remove copper, nickel and other ores from mines in the Boundary Waters and St. Louis River watershed. Similar mining operations by these companies have resulted in devastating and irreparable environmental damage in locations around the world.
Copper/nickel "hard rock" mining requires removal of rock with high sulfur content. When that rock is exposed to air and water it becomes highly toxic. Such mines are very likely to pollute the surrounding water and air with sulfuric acid, mercury and previously buried natural radioactive minerals. All copper mines listed in a report from the U.S. Geological Survey recorded spills from pipelines and almost all have contaminated the groundwater.
Stauber has a view of Eighth Congressional District economics that is seriously out of date. He refers to the proposed PolyMet and Twin Metals projects as crucial to the Iron Range economy. In truth, even iron production is no longer central to the Eighth District economy. Many more work in the hospitality industries. While Rep. Stauber will argue he is speaking for the "working men and women" of the district, he is actually advocating for short-term employment of a tiny minority. The copper-nickel deposits at the focus of this legislation are projected to be exhausted in 20-25 years, according to the mining companies themselves. The associated threat to trees, air, lakes and community drinking water could possibly eliminate the jobs of several times as many Minnesotans. It is irresponsible to advocate for an environmentally devastating mining process and concurrently disregard the substantial possibility that it could destroy the Eighth District's hospitality industry forever.
