Public school a Constitutional right?

arbilad · Head Chef

Public school a Constitutional right?

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

This way if little Johnny is a disruption in class who breaks all the rules, threatens a teacher, steals, and bullies students you won't be able to expell him because you would be violating his constitutional rights. Can you just see the federal lawsuits coming. Little Suzie isn't getting as good an education in her inner city school so she sues in federal court because her constitutional right to a public education is being violated.

I'm not too worried about it though. Congress can't even get a marriage amendment to pass, why would this pass?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I agree 100% with you here.

Public education is there for all children already (citizen or non-citizen). There does not need to be a Constitutional Ammendment to "protect" this as an entitlement. Public education is not necessarily a right, as it is not really part of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness (though it contributes to them all as well as to the General Welfare of the nation), and there is absolutely no reason to turn it into more of an entitlement attitude than it is. States already have laws in place ensuring that all minors have adequate access to public schools and public education.

What next, a Constitutional Ammendment that ensures all individuals gain access to and receive an education at public universities?

arbilad · Head Chef

salesortonscom wrote:

This way if little Johnny is a disruption in class who breaks all the rules, threatens a teacher, steals, and bullies students you won't be able to expell him because you would be violating his constitutional rights. Can you just see the federal lawsuits coming. Little Suzie isn't getting as good an education in her inner city school so she sues in federal court because her constitutional right to a public education is being violated.

I'm not too worried about it though. Congress can't even get a marriage amendment to pass, why would this pass?

I don't think that this has much chance of passing, but I've been wrong before.
I could see them using this amendment, if it were to pass, to argue that little Suzie deserves a better school. I don't see the expulsion thing, because even now, when a kid is expelled from one school, he simply goes to another for higher risk children.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

I would prefer the repeal of the "must-attend" laws. Let the screwballs who don't want to learn quit school and get a job, and the kids who want to be there won't have to put up with them.

Edited because I'm not awake yet. Thanks, Cat.

-- Edited by fear of shiz at 09:56, 2006-10-04

arbilad · Head Chef

fear of shiz wrote:

I would prefer the appeal of the "must-attend" laws. Let the screwballs who don't want to learn quit school and get a job, and the kids who want to be there won't have to put up with them.

Shiz, I agree with you 100%. Sure, some people would ruin their lives by quitting school. But as it is they sort of "quit school in place". That is, they don't really learn anything while there, but they attend to avoid trouble with the truant officer. And I constantly saw situations where the teacher had to spend 90% of his time on the kids who didn't want to be in class, shorting those kids who were either ambivalent or eager to learn the material.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Hey Shiz, ole buddy, do you mean "appeal" or "repeal"? Slight difference...

edit to add:

kinda like revelry and reveille... aaaar, matey!

-- Edited by Cat Herder at 09:57, 2006-10-04

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

What happened to my cool Darth Tater avatar?

arbilad · Head Chef

fear of shiz wrote:

What happened to my cool Darth Tater avatar?

I still see it next to your posts.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

It isn't showing up for me. Huh....

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

arbilad wrote:

salesortonscom wrote:

This way if little Johnny is a disruption in class who breaks all the rules, threatens a teacher, steals, and bullies students you won't be able to expell him because you would be violating his constitutional rights. Can you just see the federal lawsuits coming. Little Suzie isn't getting as good an education in her inner city school so she sues in federal court because her constitutional right to a public education is being violated.

I'm not too worried about it though. Congress can't even get a marriage amendment to pass, why would this pass?

I don't think that this has much chance of passing, but I've been wrong before.
I could see them using this amendment, if it were to pass, to argue that little Suzie deserves a better school. I don't see the expulsion thing, because even now, when a kid is expelled from one school, he simply goes to another for higher risk children.

Heck they can barely expell a kid now. There is a punk at my kids school who has terrorized some of the children but they won't send him to another school. I think they are intimidated by the kids parents. Imagine adding constitutional protection to the parents arsenal.

By the way, screwy parents are not just in the public schools. A friend of mine taught at a very exclusive private school in Southern California. This is one of those very expensive prep type schools. Every year he would have a couple of parents upset about their kids grades. He had to go into a meeting with the principal and the parents of one student who wanted to know why little billy was getting a Cs and Ds. He looked at the parents and told them that little billy wasn't doing any of his homework or in class assignments. The parents were miffed not believing that it was billys fault but the schools and specifically the teacher. Then he had another parent during a conference actually say to him, "What can we do right now to make that C into an A?" like he was actually going to offer money or something to get it changed.

These are generally very wealthy people with high paying corporate jobs and college educations who want their screw up kids to get coddled by the system. Give them a constitutional mandate and a high priced attourney and think what these type of folks could do to our public schools. Then throw in some ACLU pinheads to represent those who can't get their own attourney.

Rocinante · Member

I may be reaching, but if public school education became a right - could home-schooling parents be forced to send their kids to the public school or be charged with denying their child their civil rights?

WAGONMAN · Member

I think that you will find that it has a much better chance of being passed than a marriage amendment. A Democrat House or Senate would pass it in a heartbeat. The entitlement of a college education would also have a good chance of becoming a reality.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

WAGONMAN wrote:

I think that you will find that it has a much better chance of being passed than a marriage amendment. A Democrat House or Senate would pass it in a heartbeat. The entitlement of a college education would also have a good chance of becoming a reality.

Even if they could get the super majority of votes required in both then the state legislatures have to get on board. The amount of time it takes would give the oposition enough time to get organized in each state and fight the deal. Even if the dems controled both houses there are many who don't like fiddling with the constitution on something so trivial. Let the UN deal with this one!

arbilad · Head Chef

Rocinante wrote:

I may be reaching, but if public school education became a right - could home-schooling parents be forced to send their kids to the public school or be charged with denying their child their civil rights?

That is exactly what the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, the organization that posted the article I linked to, is worried about. I don't think kids preferences should have any legal power. Sure, their wants affect what parents do. But if, for instance, parents decide that homeschooling is best for their child, the kid has no legal say, in my opinion, on whether he gets to go to public school or not.
My kid wants a flamethrower. I use my better judgment and am not planning on buying one.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

arbilad wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

I may be reaching, but if public school education became a right - could home-schooling parents be forced to send their kids to the public school or be charged with denying their child their civil rights?

That is exactly what the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, the organization that posted the article I linked to, is worried about. I don't think kids preferences should have any legal power. Sure, their wants affect what parents do. But if, for instance, parents decide that homeschooling is best for their child, the kid has no legal say, in my opinion, on whether he gets to go to public school or not.
My kid wants a flamethrower. I use my better judgment and am not planning on buying one.

If it was legal and I had a place to buy them, I'd get the kid a flame thrower. Those things are cool! I want one big time. That and a 50 cal machine gun, a tank, a Harrier Jet, a RPG, and an AC130 gunship. Can you imagine how much fun yard work would be with a flame thrower? How about that neighbor dog that keeps messing up the yard? Hit him with a flame thrower and see if he uses your lawn as a public toilet again! Instead of throwing all that junk mail away just hit it with a flame thrower while it is still in the mail box. So many uses....Better than a V-Slicer or a set of ginsu steak knives.

-- Edited by salesortonscom at 11:32, 2006-10-04

Rocinante · Member

phili schools declare gay history month

"If there is a parent who wants to remove their child from school," he told Family News in Focus, "they would have to deal with the truancy regulations."

Now, why would they want to make it a violation of civil rights to keep a child in home school? I wonder.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Rocinante wrote:

phili schools declare gay history month

"If there is a parent who wants to remove their child from school," he told Family News in Focus, "they would have to deal with the truancy regulations."

Now, why would they want to make it a violation of civil rights to keep a child in home school? I wonder.

Hello, October is Squirrel Awareness month not Gay History Month. It looks like Phildelphia schools are just plain incompetent. You can't have Gay Squirrel History Awareness month. That's just rediculous!

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

salesortonscom wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

phili schools declare gay history month

"If there is a parent who wants to remove their child from school," he told Family News in Focus, "they would have to deal with the truancy regulations."

Now, why would they want to make it a violation of civil rights to keep a child in home school? I wonder.

Hello, October is Squirrel Awareness month not Gay History Month. It looks like Phildelphia schools are just plain incompetent. You can't have Gay Squirrel History Awareness month. That's just rediculous!

No, no, you need to get it right... you've gotten too lax in your combating of mutant squirrels. It is Gay Squirrel Awareness Month, and next month it will be Squirrels and the Skunks Who Love Them Month. And I know that this is true cuz I saw it on the Jerry Swinger show...

So, what are the truancy regulations they are talking about? And, what is the definition of truancy? Is it so broad as to say that if a child isn't in school or is not in school w/ an "excused" absence, they are truant? If so, what is an "excused" absence?

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Truancy/index.html

It is interesting because the link there actually specifies Philadelphia, and the information is at least 10 years old.

I would suspect that as long as parents have an alternate acceptable program that meets state requirements in place for their children if they want to keep them from school for the month, then that would not be considered truancy. I mean, you don't consider a child who is sick for a long time as truant from school do you? Sheesh...

arbilad · Head Chef

At the very worst maybe they could put their kids in private school for a month, or send them to live with relatives in another state.
I don't know how homeschooling law works in Philadelphia. But in Colorado you need two weeks notice to the school district before pulling your kid out and homeschooling them. If it is a similar method in Philly, then it wouldn't work too well for the parents to pull their kids out and homeschool them for a month, then return them to school when the gay indoctrination is over.
Of course, I think that this will influence many families to start homeschooling their kids full time.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

There is another side to the constitutionality issue. A work farm with minimal schooling may also be considered a school. An interesting possibility for those who do not keep their grades up.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Not a bad idea... work farms could also be a way of helping the illegal immigration issue. Take the jobs away from the illegals and give them to the kids needing vocational training internships...

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Jeffery_LQ1W wrote:

There is another side to the constitutionality issue. A work farm with minimal schooling may also be considered a school. An interesting possibility for those who do not keep their grades up.

Heck, even for the kids with good grades, this would be a way to get them to do some work around the farm. I'm going to start one today for my own kids!

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Well, kidding aside, education is a states right issue. You would have to change the constitution to make it otherwise (though it is being done to a certain extent today). The problem with making it a "right" it will also make punishments such as suspension or expulsion much more difficult since it will cease to be a district administrative issue and become a "constitutional" issue.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

The amendment is unnecessary. We already have enough legislation in place to legally guarantee public education for all children:

1954 Brown v. Board of Education: Supreme court struck down "seperate but equal" and declared public education is a property right.

1972 Class action lawsuit by PARC (Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Children) resulted in Supreme court ruling that all children ages 6-21 are to be provided a free public education.

1973 Pulic Law 93-112 section 504 mandated that all children with a disability (broad definition) be provided a free public education and stated that it's the responsibility of school districts to seek out those who meet the definition.

1990 Public Law 101-476 (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) defined students ages 3-21 qualifying for free public education with special education provisions.

2001 Public Law 107-110 (No Child Left Behind) reauthorized several programs for public schools and mandated performance measurements.

In the intervening years, there have been additions, amendments, etc. to address every student population in the US. And with the exception of special ed, the federal mandates have not been accompanied with consistent federal funding to fully implement them.

I think part of the motivation for the elevation of court rulings and public law to constitutional status is in response to the growing opposition by states to federal educational mandates. Connecticut is bringing suit against the Dept. of Ed. for unfunded NCLB requirements. Several states, including Utah, are considering abandoning NCLB because the the funding does not cover the requirements and because they believe they can better make decisions about student achievement.

As an educator, I think the federal government needs to get out of education. Give education back to the states and to the communities where it belongs.

arbilad · Head Chef

As an educator, I think the federal government needs to get out of education. Give education back to the states and to the communities where it belongs.

Roper, I agree with you 100% on this. The federal government is not the level to handle education at.

BTW, one problem homeschoolers have with the IDEA legistlation is that some school districts interpret it to mean that they must evaluate every child with disabilities, whether they are interested in government programs or not. There are homeschooled kids with disabilities whose parents have absolutely no desire to use government services to help in educating their kid. Evaluating the kid makes no sense in that situation, and federal judges have confirmed that it is unnecessary to evaluate a child if the parents are not going to accept services anyway.

Jeffery_LQ1W · Senior Member

Roper wrote:

2001 Public Law 107-110 (No Child Left Behind) reauthorized several programs for public schools and mandated performance measurements.

In the intervening years, there have been additions, amendments, etc. to address every student population in the US. And with the exception of special ed, the federal mandates have not been accompanied with consistent federal funding to fully implement them.

I think part of the motivation for the elevation of court rulings and public law to constitutional status is in response to the growing opposition by states to federal educational mandates. Connecticut is bringing suit against the Dept. of Ed. for unfunded NCLB requirements. Several states, including Utah, are considering abandoning NCLB because the the funding does not cover the requirements and because they believe they can better make decisions about student achievement.

As an educator, I think the federal government needs to get out of education. Give education back to the states and to the communities where it belongs.

I disagree with the underlined. NCLB is not underfunded, in fact states are not even required to accept it (Utah I believe has already chosen not to). In fact, you don't have to accept NCLB unless you want to increase your federal dollars by 50%, any money you get from the fed will always have strings attached. The government doesn't even ask you how you are going to teach, what they do though is set up mandatory testing (if you accept the money) to meet the minimum requirments or those minimum requirements seen necessary by the government (and frankly they aren't that hard to meet for most of us). The trouble is that schools want the money, just not the responsibility with it. I think Connecticut is crying in its ale over the fact that they took the money and realized that their teaching methods can't even come up to the minimum levels that the government sets.

If a state believes it can make the decisions better than the fed, there is nothing stopping them from refusing the money. It is their right to do so.

I have seen the tests by the way, even for a sixth grader they aren't that hard for students in general..

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Interesting.

The 1954 ruling would seem to make the right to public education conditional upon owning property?

The 1972, 1973, and 1990 acts / rulings (while perhaps broadly interpreted) are really only saying that children with disabilities can not be excluded from public education because of their disability.

2001 No Child Left Behind... can't comment on it, other than it seems to be nothing more than a bunch of measurements instituted that create further red tape to see if all the red tape in place already is actually ending up raising the quality of eduction and transfer of knowledge to all children in public education, regardless of school district.

As to school districts evaluation of children with disabilities, even those who are homeschooled, it may be because state law requires it. Depending on how such programs are set up and operated at the state level, the existing infrastructure is utilized. I know it is with mental health in our area. It doesn't matter if you are receiving services or not from the schools. There are specific requirements the schools must follow in regards to special education programs that receive funding from Medicaid and similar federal and state sources. If a special needs child ends up in their school district who was previously homeschooled, they have to do all that evaluation stuff anyway. Sure, it may unnecessary, and it most likely is a waste of money and time and other resources (unless you take into account that the district can bill Medicaid for it all). This is simply a manner of being proactive and having it on file or coordinating with the various agencies outside the school that do provide the services. Honestly, as the father of a special needs child, it is beyond me why any parent of a special needs child would get so "protective" of their child that they would deny him or her and their family of services available that would help them all lead a better family life. Granted, not all states or areas in states have the same level of quality in programs available, but in my mind, if a parent's idea of being advocate for their child is to keep them sequestered at home, they are really doing nothing more than "hiding the family's little secret embarrasment in the basement or attic" and doing themselves as well as their special child a huge disservice. If the system for special ed and related services has got problems, it can't be corrected if one is outside the whole thing.

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat, I mostly only know what I've read. But from what I've read, the families who refuse the testing aren't keeping a secret, or locking up a problem child in the basement. From what I've read, in every case they've chosen private sector help for their child. I agree with you; if a child has a problem, it should be dealt with and not ignored. But, at least in the cases I've read, the families may not want to have anything to do with the school, but they are still seeing professionals for help.
I imagine, of course, that that's fairly expensive.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I was being a bit over the top with the comparison, I admit, and meant to be so.

I just know that the approach of a lot of folks, particularly if they are LDS and/or middle class and/or on the higher range of education, when they have special needs children is to try and handle it all themselves. That somehow it is wrong to accept or ask for help and support. There is a very, very acute sense of being alone in the family's burden, and that that is how it should be. And, if they can't handle it, then they are afraid of shame. That is what I meant by the over the top reference.

Yet, in the eternal scheme of things, despite all the trials and different types of burdens that come with having a special needs child, these individuals are and can ultimately be a blessing in the lives of so many different people, if we as parents allow it by knowing when to share and allow them and ourselves to be served.

In some places, private may be an alternative to public or school based programs and services. Where we're at, the "public" actually has been subcontracted out to "privatized" organizations... but, it is still "public" in the sense of where the funding is coming from and how ultimately the accountability flows. And part of the way it is set up is that if certain services can be provided by the school(s) and through their resources, that is how it has to go down first.