Opinion ID: 2124044
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Education Clause and Claims of Relative Harm

Text: The provision which generates the impetus for this lawsuit is the Education Clause of the Minnesota Constitution. [1] This provision requires a general and uniform system of public schools, but, unlike many cases in other states, this case never involved a challenge to the adequacy of education in Minnesota. In fact, the parties conceded that all plaintiff districts met or exceeded the educational requirements of the state. Rather, the plaintiffs' action is premised on claims of relative harm  i.e., harm caused by the availability of fewer resources in low-wealth districts than in their high-wealth counterparts. Plaintiffs contend that the present system causes disparities in educational opportunity which are related to property wealth, thereby leading to a lifetime of relative disadvantage which violates the uniformity requirement of the Education Clause.