Another education topic. Literacy, a constitutional right?

[FaithManor]

Here is a link to a story originating out of Michigan about the possibility of literacy being declared a fundamental right.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/f6a521cc-5ce8-3395-a4e9-ea182653940b/ss_state-of-michigan-says.html

 

I get where the one side is coming from, that this is not something that can be legally guaranteed so should not be guaranteed. On the other, it does beg the question, if it is not a constitutional or fundamental human right, then how can the state mandate parents send their children to school? We don't have universal health care coverage because it isn't recognized as a human right.

 

I'm just wondering what all of you think. I can see why literacy itself as a concept might be considered to narrow to declare a right, but if a country does not consider education to be a "right", then why all of the truancy laws. Michigan now requires attendance to age 18 or high school graduation. If literacy is not a right or any other educational skill, I wonder if someone could challenge the attendance laws successfully.

 

Though it is a yahoo link, the story is from the Detroit Free Press.

Edited November 22, 2016 by FaithManor

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yeah bottom line how can something be on the one hand forced by law, but on the other hand the quality of which has no enforcement on it? So you MUST go there, but if it sucks, oh well, not our problem.  That's ridiculous.

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Even prisoners get better treatment. 

[FaithManor]

Even prisoners get better treatment. 

Sad to say that in many areas this is true. I know someone who teaches at a medium security prison here in Michigan. he has some pretty illiterate prisoners, and can get them up to an 8th grade reading level in two years. Granted, he is working mostly with adults, and those adults are motivated to attend his classes because they are treated better within the system for making the effort. But still. I think the people who brought this lawsuit do have "a leg to stand on".

[Crimson Wife]

If parents can be jailed for educational neglect, then bureaucrats can be held responsible for systemic educational neglect IMHO.

[SparklyUnicorn]

If parents can be jailed for educational neglect, then bureaucrats can be held responsible for systemic educational neglect IMHO.

 

Yeah part of the homeschool regs here specifically mention that the school system is not responsible for lousy results.  I don't know of any such wording in the state law in general for schools/education.  Maybe there is, but I have my doubts. 

[SKL]

I have a problem with this because in order for a child to gain literacy, no matter what the "state" does, it requires work on the part of the individual (and his family).  How does one decide where to place the blame if literacy doesn't happen?

 

I assume that most kids who really can't read have some learning disabilities, so they need services to be provided.  But they also need to make use of the services provided.  If they decide to be truant or otherwise opt out, how does that figure in?  The "state" can't physically force a kid to do the work required to get literate.

[SKL]

I also don't know where in the Constitution one would find this right to literacy.  Maybe some state constitutions have it, I don't know, but the US constitution doesn't talk about education.

[SKL]

I'm sure there are laws that create a right to an education in the USA, but I assume they are out of the legislatures, not the Constitution.

[poppy]

i don't see it as a constitutional right, but I do think access to education is a fundamental human right.

What's worrying to me is the quote: "the United States Supreme Court has unambiguously rejected the claim that public education is a fundamental right under the Constitution."
There are many powerful forces at work that would love to dismantle the Dept of Education. I do not trust the states to provide adequate education to their citizens.  The new push for term limits makes putting the states in charge of education an even more disastrous prospect .

 

[maize]

What level of literacy are we talking about?

 

Literacy is an outcome, an achievement. I don't see how that can be declared a right anymore than we could declare the ability to ride a bicycle a right, or the ability to paint with watercolors, or play the violin, or perform complex statistical calculations.

 

I think access to literacy instruction could be a right, and negligent instruction is inexcusable. But I don't see how a particular personal achievement can be a right.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yeah I think better wording would be a right to the access of a decent education and not a right to literacy.  You can't MAKE someone literate.  They have to do something too.  But I think it's lousy of a state to say they only must provide a building with something that they call an education, but nobody has a right to more than that.  With that attitude, why bother?

 

Although I kind of assumed that was what was meant. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by SparklyUnicorn

[FaithManor]

I think the viewpoint currently is that without a basic education/basic literacy

one's ability or pursue "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" as well as fully participate in a democracy (sit on a jury, vote - hard to do if you can't read, understand the legal process and participate in your own defense) is obstructed.

 

So it really can't be dismissed despite not being specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

 

The other issue is if it is not essential to maintaining basic rights, can the state compel students to attend if the state cannot show it is vitally necessary to society to violate the rights of parents and students to force attendance. Forced/coerced attendance is essentially a trampling of freedom to choose what is best for one's child, one's family. If the state does not have to reasonably guarantee some sort of basic outcome - even one defined as "commensurate with the student's ability (thus leeway for those with disabilities - how can mandatory attendance be defended as constitutional?

 

 

I think what is being pointed out is a certain level of legal hypocrisy.

Anyway, it is an interesting question.