Kashkari testimony holds key to improving schools, but it's not a constitutional amendment

Source: Kashkari testimony, E-12 Finance and Policy, Minnesota Senate, March 6, 2020

Author's note: This blog post was queued up to publish in March, then the COVID-19 pandemic hit us full force, disrupting the Minnesota Legislature and the rest of the world. I am publishing it today for the record and in the name of academic freedom.

In his testimony before the Minnesota Senate E-12 Finance and Policy Committee on March 6, Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank President Neel Kashkari asserted that the current education clause in our state constitution was written in 1857 to “educate the children of white land owners... It is working for well-to-do children. It is not working for low-income kids, and not working for children of color. And I don't think that is a coincidence.”

So our constitution was written by wealthy white people, for wealthy white people. There is no denying Minnesota's persistent achievement gap between whites and most (if not all) racial minority groups, but is this because of the Constitution?

Change is possible, however, said Kashkari. He showed a bar chart that shows that since 2003, education reforms in Florida schools have enabled student performance to rocket past schools in Minnesota and in almost every other state in the nation.

Kashkari was quick to clarify, “We're not just saying, do what Florida did.” But aren't you at all curious about what Florida is doing differently than Minnesota? Since Kashkari raised Florida as an example of what's possible, let's take a peek at the reforms that are improving Florida educational outcomes:

• High expectations through rigorous academic standards
• Holding schools accountable by linking rewards and consequences to an annual A-F letter grade
• Flexibility in how school districts can spend money
• Ending social promotion
• A comprehensive reading program called Just Read, Florida! to ensure every child reads at or above grade level
• Expanding school choice options
• Improving teacher quality

While Florida schools are racing to the top, Minnesota schools are still stuck in neutral at the starting line.

Lowering standards for teachers and students, integrated math, killing phonics, reducing accountability, and basing discipline on racial quotas instead of behavior have somehow not made Minnesota schools the envy of the nation.

Could local control, accountability, truly independent school districts, school choice, and funding that follows the child, instead of ever changing and proliferating state and federal mandates and lawsuits, lower expectations, and restricted parental choice, help shrink the achievement gap in Minnesota?

If the Florida Formula has produced such dramatic results since 2003, and other states are considering it, why isn't Minnesota considering the Florida Formula instead of a constitutional amendment? Kashkari challenged amendment opponents to propose a better idea. Education reforms like those in the Florida Formula would be a great place to start. Minnesota should consider what works, and listen to parents and teachers, instead of turning to the courts to “fix” our schools.

Background information:

Florida–A Model of Successful Education Reform

Evidence on the "Florida Formula" for Education Reform

Florida Department of Education: Accountability

Closing the racial achievement gap: learning from Florida's reforms

Florida's progressive education reform a model for the nation – and Obama 

Column: Florida's education reform model can unite us

New Orleans’s education success story: A model worth following

The DFL is eroding Minnesota schools 

Education: a right?

Photo by Santi Vedrí on Unsplash

You may have heard about a proposed amendment to the Minnesota constitution that would establish that “all children have a fundamental right to a quality public education.” (HF 3658/SF 3977) The amendment made headlines largely thanks to its prominent proponents, Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Alan Page and Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank President Neel Kashkari.

I do not believe that this amendment would result in better schools for the citizens of the state of Minnesota. This amendment is unnecessary at best, and at worst, an assault on the self-determination of the people of the state of Minnesota, and on parents' rights to choose the education (public, private, or homeschool) that they see best for their children.

I am troubled by the language that this bill would delete from our constitution:

Section 1. The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schools. The legislature shall make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state.

Why would this amendment strike the protection of our republican form of government, the intelligence of the people, from our constitution?

The amendment would install uniform achievement standards “set forth by the state” instead of established by the people (through their representatives in the legislature). In the recent past, we have seen how bureaucrats used administrative rule to enact academic standards like the Profile of Learning without consent of the people through regular order in the legislature (public hearings, debate, vote).

The amendment is widely opposed by members of the homeschool community, who fear a government school monopoly or worse, imposition of United Nations mandates on the sovereignty of our state and country. Katherine Kersten of the Center of the American Experiment says in her excellent critique, “the amendment mandates an outcome we don’t know how to achieve and doesn’t specify how we are to accomplish it.”

Ironically, the amendment is also opposed by Education Minnesota, which seems to see something quite different: private school vouchers.

Education Minnesota, the teachers union, opposes the amendment stating, “the strategy paves the way for taxpayer-funded vouchers for private schools, which may discriminate against certain students.” —KSTP.com, “Proposed constitutional amendment aims to eliminate Minnesota achievement gap, gains prominent supporters,” January 8, 2020

So who is supporting the amendment, besides Page and Kashkari?

The Senate bill SF 3977 has two co-authors, Jeff Howe and Eric Pratt, both Republicans.  The House bill HF 3658 has thirty-three co-authors. As reported in February by the Pioneer Press on TwinCities.com, several prominent Republicans, including House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt and Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka are at least not opposed to the idea. Attorney General Keith Ellison and at least two members of the legislative People of Color and Indigenous Caucus also support the amendment.

The amendment has the strangest bedfellows I have ever seen. If the amendment passes the Minnesota House and Senate by a simple majority, it will appear on the November ballot. If the amendment is approved by at least 51% of those voting (a blank vote counts as no), it becomes the law of the land. Since 2006, Minnesota voters adopted three constitutional amendments and rejected two.