Counterpoint: We state education organizations do not oppose a requirement to deliver on our mission

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Minnesota's founders had great foresight when designing the state's Constitution. It reads: "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 June 6 commentary "Shouldn't schools be about students learning?" — about the proposed "Page amendment" to the state Constitution requiring that all children receive a quality education — indicated that Minnesota's education organizations, the Minnesota School Boards Association (MSBA) and the Minnesota Association of School Administrators (MASA), suggested the Legislature ought not put the amendment on the ballot for public vote. Our organizations would like to set the record straight and provide further insight into our position.

As groups responsible for governance and administration of school districts, our mission statements may differ slightly from each other, but our focus and goal remain the same — graduating students with an education that allows them to reach their fullest potential for college and careers after high school. Our organizations do not oppose a requirement to deliver on this mission.

Over the past two years, our organizations have never taken a formal position against the amendment. We have been clear that the amendment, in our opinion, does need improvement. In fact, MSBA's membership expressed agreement with the concept, but could not support the proposed amendment language due to unanswered questions.

What we are concerned about is how the proposed amendment omits the language that requires the state, actually makes it a duty, to provide a general and uniform system and that the Legislature must make provisions by taxation or otherwise to secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools. The proposed amendment does not specify how schools are to be funded. In a time where our districts are not fully funded in many areas, including the areas of special education and English language, school funding must be guaranteed in the state Constitution, not implied.

There are concepts our associations like in the proposed amendment language. Our goal has always been to work with people to make the amendment language clear and concise on high student achievement and what those measurements are today and in the future.

However, supporters of the amendment's language have not been willing to make even the smallest changes. For more than a year, we have listened and shared our thoughts and concerns to improve the language in the amendment and clarify that the state needs to fully fund and make student achievement a priority in the budget. Those suggestions have gone unheard.

A constitutional amendment cannot ensure that students learn. School boards and superintendents work together each and every day to provide students with a relevant, quality public education, as we have for the past 100 years and will continue to do for the next 100 years.

Kirk Schneidawind is executive director of the Minnesota School Boards Association. Deb Henton is the executive director at the Minnesota Association of School Administrators.