School integration plan awaits Minnesota lawmakers' action, may end up back in court

A sweeping plan to integrate Twin Cities metro schools with free transportation, new magnet schools and additional mandates for segregated schools is in the hands of state lawmakers as the result of a legal settlement.

But it may soon bounce back to the courts if lawmakers don't act on the settlement plan from Cruz-Guzman v. state of Minnesota. The nearly six-year-old court case has forced the state's legal system and its lawmakers to contemplate whether Minnesota is providing all students with an adequate education — or failing to do so because it enables racial and economic segregation in public schools. How, when and where the case is resolved has significant implications for school enrollment and funding, student success and the state budget.

Even after years of legal maneuvering and mediation that produced the detailed integration plan, the case looks to be far from over. Deep disagreements remain over whether charter schools should remain exempt from any new rules requiring integration. State lawmakers, who would need to approve any deal struck in court, didn't act on the matter during this year's legislative session and are unlikely to resolve it in the upcoming special session.

Now, attorneys in the case are looking to pivot back to the courtroom, asking a judge to force the Legislature's hand or prepare for a trial that would not begin until 2022 or later.

Daniel Shulman, an attorney representing the group of families who first sued the state in 2015, said his hope is that lawmakers will tackle the issue, rather than drawing out an already lengthy legal battle.

"The state now knows, the Legislature knows — because they have the bill in front of them — what it would take to settle this case," he said.

The agreement between the families who sued and the state of Minnesota would cost an estimated $63 million per year and involve several strategies. It would identify "historically underserved students" by assessing factors like race and poverty level in different areas of the metro, and expand existing state integration programs by requiring more schools to make sure classroom instruction and programs are "culturally relevant" to their students.

Districts and charter schools, which are exempt from the state's existing integration program, would have to set three-year plans with goals for more racial and economic integration and smaller academic gaps between student groups, among other measures. Meanwhile, all metro schools would be required to provide free busing to students from designated "underserved" areas, if they wished to enroll there.

The state would also have to open four new magnet schools. They would be open to any student living in the metro area but with preference given to students living in the "most challenging environments," as determined by median income, homeownership rates and education levels of residents, among other factors. Students who enrolled in the magnet schools, or took advantage of the busing program to open enroll would generate additional state funding that would be divided between the district where they live and the district or school they attend.

Disagreements remain

In a legislative committee meeting last month — the only one granted for the integration bill during the session — state officials said they support the plan because it addresses longstanding goals of reducing educational disparities and racial and economic segregation. But they also don't want to keep tallying millions of dollars in legal fees and risk a conclusion where the court, rather than elected lawmakers, sets rules for Minnesota schools.

If the case goes to trial, said Attorney General Keith Ellison, it "leaves the ultimate resolution to the court, which undermines the interest of the Legislature in enacting educational policy."

But a group of charter school leaders who intervened in the case dispute that the plan sent to the Legislature is in the best interest of the state's students and families. The charter schools have challenged the lawsuit's claim that exempting charter schools from desegregation orders is a major contributor to both segregation and persistent disparities between students of color and their white peers.

Charvez Russell, executive director for Friendship Academy of the Arts, a Minneapolis charter school, said the new rules would put unreasonable demands on schools like his. Nearly 90% of Friendship Academy of the Arts students are Black, and 80% qualify for free and reduced lunch because of their families' income levels, so the new rules would require the school to spend time trying to advertise and enroll students based on their background — not on whether they want to attend the school.

Russell said charter school leaders agree with many of the points of the settlement plan, including directives to schools about adopting teaching and classroom practices that embrace and support students' cultural backgrounds, and mining educational research for new strategies to reduce achievement gaps. But he sees the integration requirements as a threat to parents' right to choose where they send their children to school.

"It's just when we get to this point of moving students around to get results, that's where we draw a line in the sand, and say: It doesn't work," he said.

Attorneys representing the charter schools have asked Hennepin County District Judge Susan Robiner to proceed with the case in court, saying the state and the families' attorneys were wrong to shut them out of mediation sessions that led to the bill now at the Legislature.

Broader discussions about school choice and funding are often divisive at the State Capitol, but it's not clear yet how lawmakers feel about this integration plan. The lone legislative hearing on the matter generated some questions but no public debate. Last week, as lawmakers worked behind the scenes to hash out deals before next month's special session, they were not willing to discuss the matter in detail.

Rep. Jim Davnie, DFL-Minneapolis, chairman of the House Education Finance Committee, provided a written statement: "We look forward to working with the Senate to see whether we can settle this case in the best interest of Minnesota students, but that requires a joint effort, and to date the Senate has conveyed a lack of interest in settling."

The chairman of the Senate Education Finance and Policy committee, Sen. Roger Chamberlain, R-Lino Lakes, declined to comment, citing ongoing work on bills for the special session.

Erin Golden • 612-673-4790