Education is not a right.

That is what federal courts have held consistently.

They are right, and we should resist any altruistic impulse to place a “right to an education” in the Constitution, as proposed by Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. While his heart may be in the right place, he clearly hasn’t considered the implications of his proposal.

In an attempt to better achieve the ideal of genuine equal opportunity, I've proposed an education amendment to the Constitution. It says: (1) All persons shall enjoy the right to a public education of equal high quality; and (2) The Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.

Speaking as a teacher, I have to shout out my opposition.

First, it is vague. Up to what age are individuals entitled to a public education? Up to what level of educational attainment? Are we talking about education through grade 12 for those under the age of 21, as currently exists in most states? Or are we talking a right to education through a bachelorÂ’s degree? Or does that right go on through a Ph.D. and beyond? There is absolutely nothing there that answers the question, or which constrains some judge somewhere from decreeing that the individual right to education extends throughout an individualÂ’s entire lifespan.

Secondly, this proposal is a major expansion of federal power. It effectively destroys state and local control over education and federalizes it. Will federal funds accompany the federal mandates? Or will the state and local education authorities be expected to do the heavy lifting of funding the dictates of the federal government? It seems clear that there will be mandatory higher taxes on all Americans to fund this power grab, while the local schools will be less answerable to the local community.

Third, there is the question of the status of private and home schools. Will this amendment result in the end of such alternative educational programs? We do know that private schools and home schools generally adhere to higher standards than public schools, and that the students enrolled in such programs generally do better on standardized assessments than their publicly schooled peers. Why exclude the most effective educational programs from federal funding? That cannot be justified on any legitimate educational basis – and isn’t the goal here to ensure a high quality education for all children?

Lastly, there comes the question of school discipline. Once the right to an education is constitutionalized, it will be unconstitutional to remove a disruptive student from a school. After all, they have a right to that education, and a right to be at that school. Expulsion as a means of dealing with major disciplinary infractions will be gone. So, too, will be suspension, for that will also be a denial of the studentÂ’s right to an education. Will there be any disciplinary tools left to those of us on the frontlines of education around the country, or will the right of a particular student, no matter how disruptive or dangerous, to attend school trump the right of every other student in the school to be safe and to learn?

None of this is meant to say that education is unimportant. As a teacher, I would have to argue exactly the opposite. But expanding the sphere of federal power with an unlimited mandate for expenditures and no clear limits on the extent of this new right is not the solution.

TRACKBACK TO: Stop the ACLU, Publius Rendevous, Caos Blog, Right Wing Nation, Adam's Blog, Uncooperative Blogger, Linkfest Haven, Bullwinkle Blog, TMH Bacon Bits, Stuck On Stupid, third world country, Point Five, Conservative Cat, Samantha Burns, imagine kitty, Wizbang, Basil's Blog

Posted by: Greg at 12:50 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 624 words, total size 5 kb.