Proposed Minnesota state constitutional amendment would abridge parental freedom

a reply to: nfflhome

Funding for schools in Minnesota comes largely from property taxes, with some allocation per student from the Federal government and the State, is my understanding. So, as a taxpayer, yes, I would say that if I've paid in my money at a minimum I should get some say in how my child is educated.

We've homeschooled for some time. We still pay in taxes and therefore fund the public schools. On top of that, we also have to pay all the expenses for homeschooling. I'm not complaining about that at all. I'm not saying the government should pay for my homeschooling. But what I don't want to see is the state paving the way to outlaw it either.

a reply to: PrairieShepherd

Yep. And it also says that it’s the state’s duty to ensure quality public schools that fulfill the right to a quality education. Meaning that the state is required to ensure there are good public schools that provide a good education. Much like it’s the state’s duty to build and maintain roads, whether you use them or not.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

All it takes is for some zealot to step in and declare that not providing your child with that public education for whatever reason is denying them their right. They'd do it on behalf of your precious children, of course, because your children cannot make these important decisions for themselves, and as a parent, you should be doing this, but instead you are clearly derelict.

That's what the OP is concerned about.

a reply to: ketsuko

I don't see it that way but I've never been a slippery slope kind of person. If it comes to that there's the court system to sort it out.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I see that interpretation, and I understand your analogy of roads. Where I think you & I disagree is illustrated in your omission of the word public in the emphasized section of your quote:

the state’s duty to ensure quality public schools that fulfill the right to a quality education.

They specify the right is not to a quality education. It's to a quality public education. Are there no quality nonpublic educations?

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, that is what my concern is. Apparently I'm not arguing it very well, but then again, I've never been much of a debater. This just hits a little close to home.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Much of German education law is couched in terms of what is a child's right too.

a reply to: PrairieShepherd

It places a fiscal burden on the state to provide quality public education.

Again, I'd have to see what and how they are determining quality.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Considering the crap that many Minnesota districts have been degenerating into, even ones that had previously been very good, I'd want to know that too.

a reply to: ketsuko

He's talking about Minnesota, not sure what Germany has to do with Minnesota.

a reply to: ketsuko

And as long as you brought Germany up, it is against the law to homeschool in Germany. As in, children get taken away and you go to prison.

The School Choice Act

School choice allows public education funds to follow students to the schools or services that best fit their needs—whether that's to a public school, private school, charter school, home school or any other learning environment parents choose for their kids.


Maybe this is to divert funding to just public schools and to negate the School Choice Act.


. . . . the plot thickens!

a reply to: DBCowboy

True, but I'm not proposing defunding public schools or making the state pay for private schools or homeschools.

I'm not certain on this, but I believe their measure of quality here is adherence to Common Core standards and achievement on the accepted standardized tests.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: ketsuko

He's talking about Minnesota, not sure what Germany has to do with Minnesota.

Germany has completely outlawed homeschooling because what the state considers to be important for a child to know is deemed a child's right, and children's rights are paramount to parental rights.

I'm saying the language used is similar enough to be suspicious and could be an attempt to lay out the same framework.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I hate, hate, hate common core and it's so-called math. It's the bane of existence for my dysgraphic child.

a reply to: PrairieShepherd

Are there no quality nonpublic educations?

Is the state required to provide quality private education?

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. In addition, you have the District of Columbia and Douglas County, Colorado.

www.edchoice.org...

The above are states that allow public funding to follow the student where ever they go, be it private, charter, or even home school.

This law looks to supplant School Choice Act and only allow funding to follow the student(s) to public schools.

a reply to: Shamrock6

No, nor is that what I'm saying. Again, it's not about funding private schools or homeschools. I think I've already made that clear.

This is about the potential for this wording to be used to claim a parent is denying their own child the right to a public education by homeschooling them or sending them to a non-public school. I'm not sure how I can state it any clearer.

originally posted by: PrairieShepherd
Agreed, but again, that's not what I'm saying. I think it's naïve to believe someone down the road will not abuse this to call non-public education denial of constitutional rights. Changing the wording in this way is not necessary. Why limit the right to "public"? Why not say that simply "education" is a right?

I'm with the others in that I don't think this will specifically deny parents the ability to home school.

The part that seems more relevant to home schooling is, "as measured against uniform achievement standards set forth by the state".

Sounds like MN might just be laying out an open door towards planning their own version of the ol' "No Child Left Behind" standardized testing benchmarks. I'd assume that home schooling would still be fine in MN as long as the child was keeping up with the state's achievement standards.

As a "hot button" example, parents would still be allowed to home school, and teach their child Creationism, but the state may set a standard regarding that the child must also have a set level of competence regarding the science of Evolution.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Germany has completely outlawed homeschooling because what the state considers to be important for a child to know is deemed a child's right, and children's rights are paramount to parental rights.

Okay, but Germany isn't the United States and our Constitution and Courts are different.