麻豆原创

Attorneys for the state of Rhode Island conceded in Federal Court on Thursday that, under some 鈥渆xtreme鈥� circumstances, the federal constitution may provide students a right to education. The concession came under questioning from Chief Judge William E. Smith, the federal judge overseeing an important education rights lawsuit filed by students and their parents.

Filed last November in Rhode Island, the lawsuit asserts that American students have a right under the U.S. Constitution to an education that prepares them to be capable citizens. While hearing oral arguments on the state鈥檚 motion to dismiss from both sides in the case, Judge Smith questioned the state鈥檚 position that education is not protected by the federal constitution under any circumstances.

An online summary of the lawsuit says it was filed 鈥渁mid some very troubling trends鈥� in American democracy, including 鈥渢he extreme polarization of the electorate; the dismissal of people with opposing views; the failure of many voters (and, quite often, the candidates) to focus on substantive policy issues; and the widespread acceptance and circulation of one-sided and factually erroneous information.鈥�

In a hearing room overflowing with students and parents, Smith posed a hypothetical situation:  If a state chose to close all public schools within its boundaries, would that not be a constitutional violation of students鈥� rights? Counsel for the defendants replied that in such an 鈥渆xtreme situation,鈥� the federal constitution might protect students. Attorneys for the plaintiffs noted that this is at odds with the state鈥檚 hard and fast position in this case thus far that education is exclusively a local and state matter and is not in any way protected by the federal constitution.

鈥淭hat got straight to the heart of the matter,鈥� said Michael Rebell, a professor of education and law at 麻豆原创, Executive Director of the , and lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Rebell has spent decades trying education equity cases and won a $9 billion funding equity case in New York City. Co-counsel on the matter are Jennifer Wood, executive director of the ; Samuel Zurier and Stephen Robinson, two attorneys who previously brought education rights cases in Rhode Island under the Rhode Island state constitution.

Rebell told the Court that the state鈥檚 concession should be 鈥渄ispositive for the motion to dismiss鈥� 鈥� that is, if it is acknowledged that there is indeed some right to education under the federal constitution, then the case should proceed to trial to determine the scope of that right and whether the State of Rhode Island is currently violating it.

Judge Smith is not under a deadline to rule on the matter, but Rebell said that based on his experience in other cases, the judge may rule within several months, either granting the state鈥檚 motion to dismiss the case or allowing the matter to go to trial. Rebell said that ultimately the matter may be appealed to the Supreme Court, so that the highest court in the land could rule on the question and make clear whether all students across the country will be guaranteed an education sufficient to enable them to, for example, vote, serve on a jury, or engage in local political affairs.

One question by the judge did suggest he may be skeptical about how a federal guarantee, if it is affirmed in the law, would be enforced. He noted that federal enforcement of the desegregation of public schools, for example, involved the federal government in constant monitoring and years of oversight. Rebell responded that there have been other educational rulings by the federal courts, such as the ruling that there are some limitations on the constitutional right of free speech in the school setting, which states and local school districts have been able to implement without extensive supervision by federal courts.

An online says it was filed 鈥渁mid some very troubling trends鈥� in American democracy. These include 鈥渢he extreme polarization of the electorate; the dismissal of people with opposing views; the failure of many voters (and, quite often, the candidates) to focus on substantive policy issues; and the widespread acceptance and circulation of one-sided and factually erroneous information.鈥� During the hearing, the judge reaffirmed this last point by noting the release on December 3 of results from the Program for International Student Assessment, which indicated that only 14 percent of American 15-year-olds were able to distinguish between fact and opinion in written texts.

The summary notes 鈥渙ther disturbing factors [that] have been present for decades,鈥� including low voter participation in elections compared with other developed countries, a dramatic decline in the number of citizens who actively participate in local community activities, and increasing neglect of 鈥渂asic civic responsibilities like jury service.鈥�

These deficiencies raise questions about how well the nation鈥檚 public schools are doing in fulfilling one of their basic mandates:  preparing American students to actively participate in and sustain the nation鈥檚 democratic institutions and processes. Litigants in the Rhode Island lawsuit hope to change that, for students across the country.

鈥� Patricia Lamiell

Additional coverage:

 (via The Wall Street Journal - Subscription Required)

 (via EducationDive)

 (via Providence Journal)