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.