For Educational Freedom, we believe as this author does that: “Higher Education Needs Constitutional Guarantees”
“Higher Education Needs Constitutional Guarantees”
A brief by Matt Richmond
Sept. 17, 2024, New America
https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/briefs/higher-education-needs-constitutional-guarantees/
(Also, see our related podcast 105 Reasons to Avoid Student Loans, 51-75, Reason # 68 (Constitution in the Way) that is listed on our Home Page)
In his brief, Matt Richmond reminds us that, “Widespread enrollment in higher education came several generations after the push for free, universal primary and secondary education, and this historical context shaped the language that was originally crafted when framing citizens’ rights to education in state constitutions.” He warns, “That historical context is no longer operative. Unlike when these provisions were written, some education beyond high school—whether that be a bachelor’s degree, associates degree, trade certification, or other training—is nearly compulsory to thrive in the modern American economy. And as we demand a more inclusive society, where economic mobility and opportunity are made available to all regardless of race, sex, or a family’s socioeconomic status, higher education has become increasingly important as both a stepping stone and roadblock to achieving these goals.” Richmond advises that, “Primary and secondary education benefits from a half century or more of legal precedent, with a very active set of constitutional debates regarding what equitable and adequate resourcing looks like for schools.” On a state level, “public school advocates are able to lean on the argument that students are not being provided their constitutionally defined right to an education. This is a powerful tool during both budget negotiations and demands for revisions to the formulas used to distribute state resources,” he says. In the lobbying game, he found, “Higher education, with its far more limited constitutional language to rely upon, has had to primarily focus on ‘government relations’—that is, lobbying—to achieve change.” He warns that, “Unlike elementary and secondary schooling, most states do not have any constitutional language describing their obligation to support public colleges and universities.” He proposes that the student loan problem is stuck because “no state has constitutional requirements demanding the problem be solved, which leaves advocates with no legal recourse to press for change.” See our related web page regarding the student loan lawyer competency problem. Richmond advises that it is expensive to create “a well-organized signature campaign [that] can get an amendment on the [state] ballot and in front of voters.” The Perkins Mission for Educational Freedom concurs with Richmond that, “Improving access to higher education is not a niche issue or one that applies to just one demographic group. It concerns anyone with a child, anyone interested in attending college, or anyone interested in the future welfare of their state’s economy and the social good.”
In his brief, Matt Richmond reminds us that, “Widespread enrollment in higher education came several generations after the push for free, universal primary and secondary education, and this historical context shaped the language that was originally crafted when framing citizens’ rights to education in state constitutions.” He warns, “That historical context is no longer operative. Unlike when these provisions were written, some education beyond high school—whether that be a bachelor’s degree, associates degree, trade certification, or other training—is nearly compulsory to thrive in the modern American economy. And as we demand a more inclusive society, where economic mobility and opportunity are made available to all regardless of race, sex, or a family’s socioeconomic status, higher education has become increasingly important as both a stepping stone and roadblock to achieving these goals.” Richmond advises that, “Primary and secondary education benefits from a half century or more of legal precedent, with a very active set of constitutional debates regarding what equitable and adequate resourcing looks like for schools.” On a state level, “public school advocates are able to lean on the argument that students are not being provided their constitutionally defined right to an education. This is a powerful tool during both budget negotiations and demands for revisions to the formulas used to distribute state resources,” he says. In the lobbying game, he found, “Higher education, with its far more limited constitutional language to rely upon, has had to primarily focus on ‘government relations’—that is, lobbying—to achieve change.” He warns that, “Unlike elementary and secondary schooling, most states do not have any constitutional language describing their obligation to support public colleges and universities.” He proposes that the student loan problem is stuck because “no state has constitutional requirements demanding the problem be solved, which leaves advocates with no legal recourse to press for change.” See our related web page regarding the student loan lawyer competency problem. Richmond advises that it is expensive to create “a well-organized signature campaign [that] can get an amendment on the [state] ballot and in front of voters.” The Perkins Mission for Educational Freedom concurs with Richmond that, “Improving access to higher education is not a niche issue or one that applies to just one demographic group. It concerns anyone with a child, anyone interested in attending college, or anyone interested in the future welfare of their state’s economy and the social good.”