No right to literacy!?
Jul. 3rd, 2018 12:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nairiporterJudge: Students Have No Right to Literacy
"A federal judge late Friday ruled that students at several Detroit schools have no legal right to literacy, dismissing a lawsuit filed in 2016 that took issue with the schools’ “slum-like conditions.” Judge Stephen Murphy III, in U.S. District Court in eastern Michigan, conceded in his 40-page ruling that “when a child who could be taught to read goes untaught, the child suffers a lasting injury—and so does society.” Despite this, he concluded that literacy is not a right and threw out the suit, which had been filed by Los Angeles-based law firm Public Counsel on behalf of Detroit students."
Makes no sense. The purpose of public education is to teach. To lift up children, to educate them, and to give them a competitive opportunity to procure jobs, and contribute to society. He contradicts himself in his findings.
While the U.S. Constitution does not mention a guarantee of education, once a state establishes a public school system, that state is required to give each child an equal and just education. I looked up the state of Michigan's constitution regarding education and here is what it states: Sec. 2. The Legislature shall maintain and support a system of free public elementary and secondary schools as defined by law. Every school district shall provide for the education of its pupils without discrimination as to religion, creed, race, color or national origin.
It is long past due that an Amendment guaranteeing education as a right be added to the U.S. Constitution.
I wonder how much money that judge was paid under the table for having a conclusion like this that students have no right to learn to read and write...
"A federal judge late Friday ruled that students at several Detroit schools have no legal right to literacy, dismissing a lawsuit filed in 2016 that took issue with the schools’ “slum-like conditions.” Judge Stephen Murphy III, in U.S. District Court in eastern Michigan, conceded in his 40-page ruling that “when a child who could be taught to read goes untaught, the child suffers a lasting injury—and so does society.” Despite this, he concluded that literacy is not a right and threw out the suit, which had been filed by Los Angeles-based law firm Public Counsel on behalf of Detroit students."
Makes no sense. The purpose of public education is to teach. To lift up children, to educate them, and to give them a competitive opportunity to procure jobs, and contribute to society. He contradicts himself in his findings.
While the U.S. Constitution does not mention a guarantee of education, once a state establishes a public school system, that state is required to give each child an equal and just education. I looked up the state of Michigan's constitution regarding education and here is what it states: Sec. 2. The Legislature shall maintain and support a system of free public elementary and secondary schools as defined by law. Every school district shall provide for the education of its pupils without discrimination as to religion, creed, race, color or national origin.
It is long past due that an Amendment guaranteeing education as a right be added to the U.S. Constitution.
I wonder how much money that judge was paid under the table for having a conclusion like this that students have no right to learn to read and write...
