Update on Proposed Constitutional Amendment.  Last Monday (1/13), a forum on the proposed constitutional amendment was held at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis to give proponents an opportunity to explain the reasoning behind the proposal and the need for it.  It was a star-studded day and the panels and the keynote address from Attorney General Keith Ellison were energetic and insightful.  Attorney General Ellison's address was especially powerful and hit on a number of key points outlining the need for change.

There are a lot of reasonable arguments for the amendment, but one I am having trouble getting my head around is that the education clause in the Minnesota Constitution hasn't been changed since 1857.  That's certainly true, but I don't know if that, in and of itself, is a reason to amend the Constitution.  Constitutions aren't documents to be trifled with and while change may be in order, the fact that the education clause hasn't been amended to this point in Minnesota history.

From my vantage point, the primary change is moving from the idea of a "system" of education to a student-based fundamental right.  The fundamental right to an education in Minnesota was established by the Skeen decision, but the proposed amendment would formalize that in the new language.  

Another change would spring from the need to define "quality" in the proposed amendment.  Most education funding litigation deals with adequate and/or equitable funding and there's over fifty years of state court law through which courts have become comfortable with measuring state systems against those standards.  Moving to "quality" would require courts to grapple with a new paradigm and that might (and I stress "might") require a round or two of litigation for the court to develop a constitutional definition of "quality."  Another aspect of "quality" is that it could reach into areas not traditionally thought of as open to litigation.  I think of teacher licensure as an example.

Here are a couple of other resources to consult as discussion of the proposed Constitutional amendment ensues.  Former St. Cloud school board member and school litigation expert Jerry von Korff blogs on education issues and he has two insightful entries on the current effort to amend the Minnesota Constitution.  His blog can be found at:

jvonkorff on Education

Here is a link to the Skeen v. Minnesota decision.  I was looking for a more user-friendly on-line document, but this is the best I could do.  If you scroll down, you can see Justice Page's dissent, much of which is echoed in his comments on the proposed Constitutional amendment.

Skeen v. Minnesota

Congrats to Dr. Deb Henton.  North Branch superintendent and SEE Executive Board member Dr. Deb Henton has been named the new Executive Director of the Minnesota Association of School Administrators, succeeding Dr. Gary Amoroso, who will be retiring on June 30.  Dr. Henton will be sorely missed for her work with SEE and I know the folks in North Branch feel the same way.  Her contributions to SEE as a member of the Executive Board, a consistent participant on the Legislative Committee, and as the organization's Secretary have been considerable and crucial to our success.  Her record as superintendent is also superlative as she guided North Branch during challenging times.  I know I speak for everyone involved with SEE when I wish her the best as she takes on her next challenge.

I guess this pic says it all as out-going MASA Executive Director Gary Amoroso gives in-coming Executive Director Deb Henton her Superintendent of the Year award back in 2018.

Getting Started in 2020.  There's probably not a more appropriate day to kick off blogging for 2020 than Elvis Presley's 85th birthday (we know from the World Weekly News that he's still alive, so have a good one Elvis!).  In honor of the day, here's a pic to mark the celebration.

While it wasn't a work by Elvis, the Legislature is getting ready to "Shake, Rattle, and Roll" with their convening a little more than a month from now on Tuesday, February 11.  The November budget forecast was positive with just over an additional billion on the plus side of the bottom line going into the 2020 session.  The outlook for the next biennium is also positive, with a projected surplus of approximately $700 million beyond inflation available.  

The positive economic picture will certainly fuel discussion during the 2020 session (Duh!).  There will be a push by some to fund programs that fell by the wayside during the waning days of the 2019 session along with advocacy for tax cuts.  Seeing it is not an official budget year (it seems that in recent years, every year is a budget year), there will likely be resistance to pursuing any spending that will have implications for the next biennium.  That probably means another adventure in loggerheads even though agreement on a significant-sized bonding bill is very likely.

So, buckle up!  With a month to go before the live verbal ammunition starts to fly, now is a great time to contact your legislators and tell them your story.  There's still time to get them out to your school sites to see first-hand what your needs--funding and otherwise--are.

Constitutional Amendment Chatter.  Former Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Alan Page and Minneapolis Federal Reserve President Neil Kashkari are proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution that would replace the current education clause.  The current education clause reads as:

UNIFORM SYSTEM OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 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.

The proposed language would read as follows:

EQUAL RIGHT TO QUALITY PUBLIC EDUCATION. All children have a fundamental right to a quality public education that fully prepares them with the skills necessary for participation in the economy, our democracy, and society, as measured against uniform achievement standards set forth by the state. It is the paramount duty of the state to ensure quality public schools that fulfill this fundamental right.

As the organization whose members largely composed the plaintiffs in the Skeen v. Minnesota lawsuit, SEE obviously has great interest in this effort.  SEE (then ASGSD) considered pursuing a constitutional amendment after the Skeen decision was reversed in favor of the state at the Supreme Court level, but that path was not chosen and instead, it was decided to concentrate on legislative efforts to enhance the equalization programs that were enacted in the early-1990s in the interregnum between the decision in favor of the plaintiffs--a set of individual ASGSD members--and the reversal of that decision by the Supreme Court in favor of the State and a set of intervening school districts. 

First off, it's great to see the term "fundamental right" in the proposed language.  The fundamental right to an education in Minnesota was established by Skeen, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction to formalize that language.  Further, the proposed language does add more structure to the current clause by speaking to the need for "skills."  What gives me pause (at least at the moment) is the mention of uniform achievement standards as set by the state.  Minnesota's achievement gap is clearly a major issue and directing resources to close that gap should be among, if not paramount in, the state's top education funding and policy goals.  My concern is that if we continue to concentrate solely on test scores as an indicator of educational equity, it remains an incomplete picture of what is required in terms of the "skills necessary for participation in the economy, our democracy, and society" as mentioned in the proposed amendment.  I am curious to see what the proponents of the amendment see as the structure to deliver these standards and whether these standards are solely academic.

I am also curious about how this effort dovetails (or not) with the current litigation discussions going on in St. Cloud.  That effort also centers on the notion of a fundamental right to a quality education and the current lack of funding to assure that fundamental right.  Further, given the working group convened by the Minnesota Department of Education with the goal of revamping Minnesota's education funding formulas, I will be curious to see if talk of the proposed amendment has any influence on those discussions.

I think the bottom line is that Skeen was filed over 30 years ago and the final Supreme Court decision (of which Justice Page was in dissent) and there have been seismic shifts in the state's demography and population distribution since then.  Given those changes, a discussion of updating the Minnesota Constitution is in order.  There are always questions as to where the discussion will head and it's always important to remember that the Legislature will retain considerable leeway in deciding how to work under any new constitutional framework, so changing the constitution won't bring current efforts on the level and distribution of funding (and delivery systems) to a screeching halt.

All this said, I think it is incumbent upon all sectors of the education enterprise to monitor this effort and find ways to provide input and get answers.

Here is a link to a webpage that contains a lot of information about this effort.

A constitutional amendment to transform education in Minnesota

Below is a link to the StarTribune story on the proposed amendment.

To close Minnesota's achievement gap, two leaders propose amending state Constitution