The immediacy of the leaders’ warning in 2023 was sharpened by events unfolding around the country. Just a week before they sent their letter, the mass shooting at Covenant Christian School in Nashville had captured national attention, as three children and three adults were killed in a targeted attack that horrified communities and intensified debates over school security. For Adkins and Benz, this incident stood as a grim example of the vulnerabilities shared by many faith-based schools, which often operate with fewer security resources than public systems. In their correspondence, they emphasized that private schools in Minnesota—whether Jewish day schools, Muslim academies, or Christian institutions—were experiencing increasing threats, ranging from hostile messages to security breaches and concerns about potential targeted violence. The leaders argued that these schools should not be excluded from programs designed to protect Minnesota’s children simply because they operate outside the public system. They highlighted the fact that more than 72,000 students attend nonpublic schools in the state—a significant population whose safety, they argued, deserved equal state protection. The letter specifically requested that $50 million be included in the final Education Finance Bill to permit private schools to access the Building and Cyber Security Grant Program and the Safe Schools Program. These programs fund essential measures such as building security upgrades, emergency communication systems, threat assessment training, mental health services, and cyber protection—a growing concern given the rise in online threats targeting religious institutions. Adkins and Benz asserted that excluding nonpublic schools from these programs not only created a dangerous inequity but also undermined a statewide effort to improve school safety for all children, regardless of the type of institution they attended. Their tone was measured but resolute, expressing frustration at previous legislative inaction while urging state leaders to recognize that in an era of increasing threats, security should not be a privilege reserved for one educational category.

The 2023 request did not arise in a vacuum; it followed earlier attempts to persuade state lawmakers to include private schools in Minnesota’s broader security apparatus. In 2022, the Minnesota Catholic bishops, together with Archbishop Bernard Hebda of St. Paul and Minneapolis, had appealed for statewide inclusion in safety funding programs, warning that faith-based institutions remained vulnerable targets. They cited not only national trends but also local incidents, such as vandalism, bomb threats, and harassment directed at religious schools. Despite these appeals, Minnesota’s legislative framework remained unchanged: access to key safety funding programs continued to be limited to public school districts, charter schools, and cooperative educational units. Private schools were excluded due to what state officials described as a structural issue: they lack the local tax levy base required to participate in certain funding models. While public schools can draw on levies to match or supplement state dollars, private schools, which operate on tuition and donations, cannot. To school leaders, however, this rationale missed the broader point—that safety should not be contingent on a school’s funding structure or religious identity, especially when the state was already acknowledging heightened threats to religious communities in other contexts. The leaders argued that safety programs funded through general state appropriations, rather than levies, could easily be extended to private institutions if lawmakers chose to do so. Their frustration stemmed from what they perceived as an inconsistent policy that treated safety as a universal priority in rhetoric but not in practice. They maintained that safety programs should reflect the reality that threats do not discriminate between public and private buildings, and that failing to include all schools left thousands of students exposed to preventable risks.

In response to criticism following the tragic shooting in Minneapolis, Governor Tim Walz’s office released a statement to Fox News emphasizing that private schools do receive certain forms of state support. A spokesperson noted that while some funding streams remain limited to public entities due to statutory constraints, nonpublic schools are eligible to participate in training and resources provided by the Minnesota School Safety Center. The spokesperson emphasized that “the governor cares deeply about the safety of students and has signed into law millions in funding for school safety.” However, for many Catholic and private school leaders, this response fell short of addressing the specific concerns they had raised. While training resources are valuable, they argued, they do not provide the physical or technological infrastructure required to protect students in an era of increasingly complex and coordinated threats. Programs like the Building and Cyber Security Grant Program allow public schools to install reinforced doors, improve surveillance systems, develop secure entry vestibules, hire security personnel, and implement real-time emergency communication technologies—measures that nonpublic schools cannot access despite facing similar risks. Critics of the state’s policy contended that describing these differences as mere logistical or structural issues ignored the public safety dimension at stake. Furthermore, some community members questioned whether political hesitancy around supporting religious institutions played a role, though state officials denied this. The debate illuminated a deeper tension in American education: the challenge of reconciling constitutional boundaries, funding structures, and the state’s responsibility to protect all children regardless of the type of school they attend.

In the aftermath of the tragedy, many Minnesotans began revisiting the content of Adkins’ and Benz’s 2023 letter with a sense of retrospective urgency. Their warnings, once viewed by some legislators as budgetary requests competing with other priorities, now read as stark predictions of what could happen if security funding remained uneven across school types. Parents expressed frustration that earlier appeals had not prompted swifter action, and some questioned whether the state’s reluctance to modify eligibility rules ultimately left private schools without the tools needed to prevent or respond to threats. Education advocates have since argued that the conversation around school safety should not be framed as a partisan issue or as a debate between public and private sectors. Instead, they propose that policymakers consider the real-world conditions facing schools: many private institutions occupy older buildings, often with limited budgets for modernizing security systems. Unlike public districts, they cannot rely on state-mandated levies to finance upgrades, leaving them dependent on fluctuating donations or tuition increases, neither of which reliably cover major safety investments. School leaders argue that these obstacles create an environment in which private schools must choose between investing in education or in physical security—an unfair dilemma, they say, given that the state’s public education system views safety as a shared and unquestioned responsibility. The tragedy highlighted the need for a broader dialogue about how safety resources are allocated, and whether current policies adequately reflect the risks faced by all Minnesota students.

As the public seeks accountability and lawmakers reconsider past decisions, many see the tragedy as a turning point—an opportunity to reevaluate how Minnesota protects students across all educational settings. Advocates for private and faith-based schools argue that going forward, the state should adopt a more inclusive approach, one that recognizes that threats to schools do not distinguish between public and nonpublic institutions. They contend that safety programs funded through state appropriations, especially those aimed at major infrastructure improvements or emergency preparedness initiatives, should be accessible to all schools serving Minnesota children. Some legislators have expressed openness to revisiting these policies, while others continue to cite legal and structural challenges. Meanwhile, educators, parents, and community leaders emphasize that proactive solutions are necessary and that waiting for future tragedies before expanding safety access would be both irresponsible and morally indefensible. As the debate continues, the voices of those who originally sounded the alarm in 2023—Adkins, Benz, and Minnesota’s faith-based leadership—resonate more strongly. They maintain that their earlier warnings were not merely political advocacy but a plea born of responsibility for the people in their care. With renewed urgency, communities now look to the state government to address the gaps that the tragedy exposed and to ensure that safety, in practice as well as principle, extends to every student across Minnesota. The conversation has shifted from whether private schools deserve access to security funding to how the state can create a framework that protects all its children, reinforcing the belief that school safety must be a shared, statewide obligation.