EdAction
Maple River Education Coalition PAC
105 Peavey Rd, St 116 
Chaska, MN  55318 
952-361-4931
http://www.EdAction.org
E-mail

March 9, 2000 

Pogemiller's Constitutional Amendment on Education: SF 2382

(no House companion bill)

The present constitutional language on education 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 system of public schools."

The language proposed by SF 2382 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 system of public education that educates every student to be an informed and productive citizen and prepares and motivates them to reach their highest potential."

Why would Senator Larry Pogemiller want to amend the Minnesota Constitution with this language? The reason is that the new language would constitutionally require all public schools to adopt the basic framework of the Profile of Learning, Goals 2000 and School-to-Work. A careful reading of the proposed amendment reveals how this will take place.

First notice that the Minnesota Constitution now recognizes one central purpose of education — namely the development of "the intelligence of the people." That is, our Constitution recognizes and stipulates that education has one and only one central purpose, that of imparting academic knowledge to students. The Constitution does not prohibit vocational education, but by mentioning only the core academic purpose of education the Constitution clearly and properly stipulates that vocational training, citizenship, personal pursuits and the like are applications of the central purpose of imparting academic knowledge. In addition, our state has always recognized that education methodology essentially consists of teachers, who possess academic knowledge, having the task of imparting this knowledge to their students.

The proposed new language broadens and expands the role of government, and makes radical changes to the purpose of education in Minnesota. No longer will the pursuit of knowledge be the primary purpose of education. Education would have four co-equal purposes. Those co-equal purposes would be to produce students who are:

1. informed citizens
2. productive citizens, and
3. reach their highest potential.

One stated purpose would still be academic achievement, but the context clarifies that this purpose would no longer have priority as compared to other purposes. On the contrary, academic achievement as an objective is modified and tempered by the other two objectives which would now be placed on a par with academics.

The second stated purpose of education would be that of producing "productive citizens."  This vocational objective would no longer be viewed as an application of knowledge, but would now be a central purpose on a stature equal to academics  What is a "productive citizen"? Since this goal would no longer be an application of knowledge but would instead be an end in itself, it can only be School-to-Work. That is, the proposed new language makes School-to-Work a constitutional requirement for all public schools.

The third stated purpose of education, under the proposed new language, would be that of preparing and motivating students "to reach their highest potential." What does that mean?

The language broadens the powers of the state, but does so in a way so vague that legislators, courts and judges can define it any why they wish. Is court-ordered additional funding for education necessary, for example, so students "can reach their highest potential"? It is easy to see how a court could make that ruling. Is the Profile of Learning necessary so students "can reach their highest potential"? Senator Pogemiller obviously thinks it is. 

Moreover, this language is, or approaches being, code language for progressive education. It is not by coincidence that the progressive education movement commonly uses the terminology of "reach their highest potential." Such language has been part of the bread and butter talk of prominent humanists such as John Dewey, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. Rogers, for example, said his approach to psychology, where clients were to "reach their highest potential," was "client-centered." From the vantage point of this worldview, the same language means that education should be "student-centered," not "knowledge centered." Teachers are to be "facilitators," not instructors.

The impact of this proposed constitutional amendment, as it will be interpreted by those who now run Minnesota's education system, will be to require all schools to adopt the underlying, radical framework of the Profile of Learning, STW, and Goals 2000. Considering the vagueness of the third purpose, it may actually go way beyond that. Central to this agenda is the oppressive, top-down system where businesses, legislators and courts — not parents, teachers and schools — make the real education decisions. Clearly, this is not the sort of language that should go into a constitution intended to govern a free society.

EdAction - 105 Peavey Rd, Ste 116, Chaska, MN  55318 
952-361-4931 - edaction@lakes.com - (c) EdAction - All rights reserved.