|
|
Credit: Ann LoBue
Education Dive
Rhode Island student: 'I don't have civics education'
The lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the Cook v. Raimondo
right-to-education case described Thursday's oral arguments as a lively
dialogue before a sharp judge.
Linda Jacobson
Dec. 6, 2019
About 50 students attended a hearing at the U.S. District Court in
Providence, Rhode Island, Thursday where they were about to learn
things they say they haven’t been taught in school.
“Being in that courtroom pushed my desire to pursue the path of being a
lawyer and understand the vernacular that these people are using
because right now I don’t, because I don’t have civics education,”
16-year-old Jayson Rodriguez said during a briefing following the
hearing where attorneys on both sides of the Cook v. Raimondo
right-to-education case presented oral arguments before Judge Chief
Judge William E. Smith.
The plaintiffs — including current, former and future Rhode Island
students — say the state is not providing an education that adequately
prepares students to participate as informed citizens in civic life.
While some districts provide civics education, others don’t.
“I guess my knowledge of civics education is obviously very limited,”
said lead plaintiff Aleita Cook, adding what she has learned about
politics has been acquired outside of school. Now 18, she said she was
excited about being old enough to vote.
Attorneys for Gov. Gina Raimondo, the state legislature, state
Education Commissioner Ken Wagner and the state Board of Education,
however, argue the case should be dismissed because the U.S.
Constitution does not specifically grant the right to an education.
Michael Rebell, lead counsel for the plaintiffs and founder of the
Educational Equity Campaign at Teachers College, Columbia University,
described the hearing as a lively dialogue in which Smith raised a
variety of questions and concerns.
“It was what we call in the trade ‘a hot bench.’” Rebell said. “This is
the ideal of what a really productive oral argument before a judge
should be.”
Smith, Rebell said, brought up the topic of media literacy as an element of civics.
In response to the judge asking exactly what the plaintiffs want,
Rebell said he made the point that unlike desegregation and past school
finance cases, the court would not have to provide ongoing monitoring
to ensure compliance.
“We want the court to declare that all kids have the right to an
education that prepares them to vote, to exercise their First Amendment
rights,” he said, adding attorneys for the state did agree if the state
completely eliminated its education system, then students would have a
federal right to complain. “That was a huge concession in my mind.”
As with Gary B. v. Snyder, a Michigan case filed in federal court on
behalf of Detroit students against former Gov. Richard Snyder, the
plaintiffs in the Cook case say the U.S. Supreme Court left the
question of a Constitutional right to education unresolved 46 years ago
in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. In their
ruling on that school funding case, the justices referred to the “basic
minimal skills necessary for the enjoyment of the rights of speech and
of full participation in the political process.”
|
|
|
|
