From the outset of distance learning, Kathy Moore knew that there’d be nothing equitable about how her three children finished out their school year. They live in Lake Shore, a northern Minnesota community served by the Brainerd Public Schools district.
Her kids excel, academically. But they have slow, spotty internet service at their home — which also serves as an office for Moore and her husband. That means it took her kids close to 30 minutes to download a five-minute video. Those wanting to partake, fully, in a live class meeting online had to ask everyone else in the household to get offline. And the two eldest had to drive to a home with a faster internet connection to take seven Advanced Placement online exams — all while being mindful of social distancing and sanitizing practices.
Looking ahead, it’s likely that distance learning — at least in some capacity — may return next fall. But this way of doing school is wearing on everyone’s patience, and energy for staying engaged, Moore says.
They use cellphone hotspots at their house — operating on just two to three bars of service. After the transition to distance learning, their school district outfitted them with an additional hotspot, which they returned when classes wrapped up two weeks ago.
Ideally, for a faster, more reliable connection, they’d connect their home to the local provider’s nearest cable hub box, located just a quarter mile down their driveway. But it’s never going to happen, Moore says, because the expense of building out that connection isn’t an economical one for the provider.
She’d like to apply for state grant dollars allocated to these very projects in rural communities. But on state maps, her household gets marked as covered by a local provider — a glitch in the system that makes her and many in her community ineligible.
“Until that gets fixed, lots of communities like ours are going to be passed over. We’ll still have kids going to school, people working from home,” she said. “We’re waiting for the system to catch up with reality.”
[image_credit]Courtesy of Kathy Moore[/image_credit][image_caption]Mary, grade 11, learning to code while distance learning.[/image_caption]
However, while bills for additional broadband and distance learning tech funding made it all the way to the end of session, ultimately nothing passed.
Now she, along with so many other Minnesotans who are being impacted by the digital divide, will have to wait to see if state lawmakers end up taking action during a special session, slated to begin June 12.
Dashed legislative efforts
Sen. Rob Ecklund, DFL-International Falls, authored a bill (HF3029) that would have expedited the state’s investment in closing the digital divide in the midst of distance learning.
[image_caption]State Sen. Rob Ecklund[/image_caption]
The demand, however, far outpaces the state’s current investment. During this last round, the state Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), which administers these grants, received requests for $70 million in funding from 80 different applications.
[image_caption]State Sen. Torrey Westrom[/image_caption]
Sen. Torrey Westrom, R-Elbow Lake, authored a companion bill, which passed in the Senate. But Ecklund’s bill got tied up over concerns that the broadband expansion piece would not be covered by coronavirus-related federal funds, he says. So he’s been keeping an eye on how other states are using those federal funds. At least two other states, that he knows of, have used those dollars for broadband projects.
“We’ll see if there’s a challenge to that, or what’s going on. I passed that on to leadership, so they’re at least aware of it,” he said. “I’ve been in communication with Sen. Westrom. I’d at least like to get that education and telehealth piece passed in a special session — because those do appear to qualify for CARES Act funding.”
Discrepancies in tracking the need
As shown in the provider broadband service inventory map that DEED publishes, using data collected from providers across the state, many Minnesotans live in areas that are underserved or unserved — meaning they have inadequate downloading and uploading speeds or no access at all. In addition, there are households that show up as being covered in this map that are actually stuck in a situation like that of the Moore family.
Getting a clear count on just how many Minnesota students are lacking adequate broadband access, however, has proven to be a challenge.
[image_credit]Minnesota Department of Economic Development[/image_credit][image_caption]Border-to-Border Broadband Development Grant Program: Unserved, Underserved and Served Broadband Areas[/image_caption]
According to the Minnesota Rural Education Association (MREA), those counts seem a bit low. Their analysis shows that nearly 31,000 rural public students live in households that do not have adequate broadband access (defined as a connection with at least 25 Mbps download speed and at least 3 Mbps upload speed), accounting for 85 percent of the statewide total. The association arrived at these estimates by combining the Minnesota State Office of Broadband Development coverage maps with the American Community Survey data on households with persons under age 18 in each school district, along with state Department of Education data on 2018-19 student enrollment.
The association is asking member districts to verify these estimates, and to submit an updated count of households with enrolled students who do not have access, as well as the number who have access but cannot afford to pay for that access. DEED maps map out accessibility, but not affordability.
For instance, in the Bemidji area, Telecom has been very active in laying out broadband fibers — making internet nearly 100 percent accessible there, says Fred Nolan, executive director of MREA. “But that doesn’t help address affordability issues — especially with the American Indian population and high degree of poverty in that area,” he explained. “You need both parts of the proposition.”
Calls for additional investments
Looking ahead, the state Department of Education has asked districts to create contingency plans for a hybrid model that combines distance learning with on-site learning for the start of the 2020-21 school year next fall.
To help smooth out this transition, Gov. Tim Walz listed “technology for K-12 students to assist their learning” as a top priority for the $43 million in the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief funds, received through the federal CARES Act.
But Nolan worries that too many rural students will remain disconnected from online learning opportunities next fall; and that as the digital divide does close, those last in line may end up being left behind altogether.
“We need to have all children educated, wherever they are, rather than looking at it as ‘Well, that’s a small subset,’” he said. “This is as important as school buses, as textbooks, as teachers. This has become an essential part of providing education, daily, for students throughout the state.”
[image_credit]MREA[/image_credit][image_caption]Public school enrolled students with no broadband internet availability[/image_caption]
That includes ARVIG, an internet provider that serves a number of rural communities across the state. The company signed onto the Keep Americans Connected Pledge, promising not to disconnect anyone who couldn’t pay during the pandemic. They also established a free Wi-Fi hotspot at their office in Parkers Prairie, offering students an access point they could use to get their school work done.
All of those free services came with a deadline, though: through the end of the school year. That means students are on their own for summer school. And the company isn’t sure what it’ll be able to offer, for free, next fall, says Lisa Greene, a company spokesperson.
“It’s not a sustainable model, for the long-term,” she said. “We’ll have to figure out something else.”
Indeed, relying on corporate charity for broadband access is not a sustainable model for educating kids living in rural areas. It ought to be – is, actually, according to the state constitution – a state responsibility. If the bills mentioned in Erin’s piece have been “passed on to leadership,” then leadership, especially in the Senate, has failed in one of its more basic responsibilities, not to mention failing miserably to fulfill a perennial campaign promise – at least during the 11 years I’ve lived here.
Until that first map is entirely green, any rhetoric by either political party about “equal educational opportunity” is basically a lie, and both parties should have their collective feet held to the fire until substantive policy and action is taken by the legislature to bring broadband within reach – both technologically and financially – of every family in the state. Such an accomplishment might well be worth bragging about. At present, however, that first map is, or at least should be, an embarrassment.
So get out your checkbook. Taxes are already way too high in this state. Pay for your own internet service or force the govt to cut spending elsewhere. I’d say cut out the light rail that’s a couple billion right there.
I’d say take the money out of the road budget. The early days of the pandemic proved how much less we need to drive if we have good internet service.
My checkbook is already out. A retiree living on a fixed income, then and now, when I came here from Colorado 11 years ago, my state income taxes rose 283% and my property taxes (admittedly on a different property) went up 52%. Instead of living in a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere, I found that my modest standard of living didn’t really change substantially. Yes, income and property taxes are much higher, but many things for which sales taxes are routinely paid, at least in Colorado and Missouri, are sales-tax free here – food and clothing being worth noting. Basically, it’s been a wash. Government, whether “small” or “big,” costs what it costs, so if you’re not paying for it with income taxes, you’ll end up paying for it via sales or other taxes. I’d rather have paved roads, transit alternatives, and at least some social safety net rather than dropping back to the 19th century.
In the parts of the State that are “underserved” by not having wired connections there are numerous wireless providers, either by having receivers mounted on houses receiving signals from transmitters mounted on water towers, grain bins/silos/upright grain conveyors or by having satellite internet from companies like ViaSat. I live in Greater Minnesota and have used ViaSat for over 10 years and would classify the service as having speeds comparable to those of wired internet service. I’ll admit that there are trade-offs with these kinds of services. There’s no need to have every rural residence wired for broadband internet where there can be one house for every 1-2 miles of cable.
Have you tried these services? They are unreliable, at best in west central Minnesota. A good snowstorm, leaves, or even wind puts you out of commission. In addition, they are way more expensive for a lot less capacity. And I would argue you last statement that it’s not necessary for all houses is wrong. Farmers I talk with all complain about having to rely on these services you mention. Fast, reliable, internet is necessary for everyone today, not an option.