READ THIS: Is Education a Right or a Commodity?

The ACLU is suing the state of Michigan and the Highland Park (MI) school district for violating students' right under the state constitution to "learn to read."

My friend and editor, Sam Chaltain, has written eloquently about this case and the larger issues surrounding it. Most notably, he briefly traces the ongoing political battle in the U.S. over whether education should in fact (and under law) be a protected, guaranteed right of every American child.

Here's a slice:

Although this case is the first of its kind, we’ve been having this debate for a loooong time now. For years, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. has tried — and failed — to introduce language for a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution “regarding the right of all citizens of the United States to a public education of equal high quality.”

Then there’s the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child, a 1989 gathering that resulted in the first legally binding international treaty and establishment of universally recognized norms and standards for the protection and promotion of children’s rights. By any account it was an overwhelming success; all but three member nations signed on.

The three holdouts? Somalia. South Sudan. And us.

You need to read his entire post, then join the conversation. Should a quality education be the birthright of every child in America? How essential is that to the future of our nation? Do we have the moral and political will to pay for such an education for all our children the way many other nations have for theirs?

Comments

[Justin Minkel]

I recently served on a panel with a Republican congressman from my part of Arkansas. He shared one of the main goals of the state Republican party at the moment: to reduce the definition of "adequacy" in education in order to spend less money on kids, schools, and teachers.

This same Congressman did what I have seen time and time again: He opened his remarks with the U.S.'s low PISA ranking, then went on to recommend reforms (such as diverting public funds toward parents who wish to home-school their children) that are anathema to the actual practices of countries that perform well on the PISA.

In the face of these kinds of assaults on children and families, I think we as teachers need to exemplify that same quality we keep hearing about when it comes to successful students:

Grit: the combination of passion and perseverance

It's an honor to be in the company of so many educators who exemplify those qualities.

[TeachMoore]

Justin,
You're right we need grit (or in the case of us Southerners--grits).

I've seen that same scenario many times as well. Opponents of public education using international test results to rail against public schools and teachers, while conveniently ignoring what those other countries do to support their schools and teachers that we refuse to do.

While homeschooling is a great option for those who can do it or want to, there is no excuse for American children not having the best public schools anywhere. It's an insult to tax-paying parents for state legislators to tell us you'd rather give us a chump-change voucher and send to us to find education for our children as best we can; rather than do what's right by public schools.

[Scott head]

Renee,
I agree with the educating every child as a right. But, along with this "right" comes a belief, true or not, that education is to be provided by the government. Now, I am a psychology major and current teacher of 10 years; I have NEVER believed that a the only way to become educated is through a teacher. As a matter of fact, the only person who can educate somebody is the individual who WANTS to be educated.

Should everybody have access to education? yes! Does that mean we should educate everybody? No!

Why would we force a person to learn? How can we force a person to learn? You can't do either, learning, true learning comes from intrinsic motivation for something valued within the learner. But, this comes with dichotomies. If the learner believes it is their right for our government, teacher or society to educate them and they don't become educated it's the government, teacher or societies fault. (sound familiar?) So, we reform this idea and leave the learning up to the learner. We create learner centered environments conducive to learning, but we don't teach learning, we teach facts. We measure fact recollection and we assign value to the best remember'er..... (sound familiar?)

Look, education for all (as a right) is bad for America. Education for all those who want to be educated is better than forcing education to all. But, in my mind, allowing the learner to define their own passions, after learning the basics (grade 6 and beyond). Using an educator to help guide their passions would benefit American children and education far better than it is in our current state.

Right and privilege are very different in meaning, but most importantly perception!

[TeachMoore]

I thank you for your thoughtful response to this topic.

You are partially correct; all rights come with inherent responsibilities. No, true learning cannot be forced.

However, your response oversimplifies a problem that is made complex by many features unique to American education. For one, we have in this country a long history of providing unequal educational opportunities (I've written about this elsewhere).
Furthermore, the way we do education in many parts of our school systems actually work to crush children's natural curiosity and desire to learn.

As you suggest, the way we go about education needs to change--and that change is taking place now. However, allowing 12-13 year olds to decide whether they need or want an education strikes me (as a parent who has raised 11 children) as irresponsible. Allowing future citizens to grow up poorly educated or functionally illiterate is dangerous.

Education in a democratic republic should cannot be treated as a privilege, unless it is our intention to disenfranchise whole sections of our citizenry.

[Scott head]

Thank you for your response. I would like to clear up the issue I mentiond about 12 and 13 year olds.

I believe that there should be more options available for educating beyond grade 6. Keeping a student inside of an industrial mindset "box" we call yearly grades 7 to 12, is a big part of the problem in education.

Students don't need to be taught English writing in grade 10. They need to be given opportunities to increase their writing abilities in areas which they enjoy, if that is English writing then great; but forcing a students to do something they aren't interested in is killing a child's natural desire to learn.

Beyond grade 6, let's teach children how to learn using their natural curiosity.

Again, than you for your response and by the way, raising 11 children? God bless you for that, I bet you are a great mom!

Thanks for conversation!

[TeachMoore]

Thanks for clearing up my confusion about the tweenagers.

I thoroughly agree with you about the foolishness of using grade level separations, especially beyond grade 6 [I blogged about this before, too].

Teaching children based on their own curiosity is the premise of problem-based learning; a topic I'm learning more about everyday. Are you familiar with the work of Sheryl Nussbaum Beach and the Powerful Learning Practice Network?