“But really, if schools were to teach all of their students to be really good readers, the students could pretty much take it from there. If you can read, you can learn everything else.”

A true statement and what will surely to be a reality in the near future, the public education forces gathering together to amass their list of reasons or the excuses why schools can not teach all students to become very good readers.I am sure the ACLU are well prepared for the predictable arguments that will emerged from the education forces that students do not have a civil right to the basics in reading,writing and numeracy, and learning them well, so they can learned everything else.

The site of the ACLU -  http://www.aclumich.org/issues/student-rights/2012-07/Right-to-Read

Reactions are typical - if not filled with subtle discrimination - and that is to justified the poor reading outcomes on the perceived social/economic status of the students. Still early, but the education forces will try everything in their power to prevent the ACLU suit from ever reaching the court room.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120716/OPINION01/207160307

The last link is a good one, declaring the state of Michigan should not be named in the civil suit. The comments are typical, and the kind that blames the parents, with some demanding that it is the parents that should be named in the suit. It appears to be the siren call from the 15 articles I read so far.

The first of its kind lawsuit, emerges from the learning disabilities civil law suits and the associated victories of LD students having the right to received education services in addressing their reading, writing and numeracy weaknesses, and the associated accommodations. The education forces will have a tough battle to convince a judge, that the data streams of outcomes are of no value, and in the same way the education forces tried to argued concerning LD cases. In the light of the advancements and knowledge in the reading science fields, it will be an uphill battle for the education forces not to appear to be defending the right to discriminate based on the social-economic status of students.

In Canada, although not as advance as in the United States, the Moore case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in March of 2012, is all about the right to education services to the 3 Rs. Still awaiting word from the Supreme Court of Canada, but I bet the education heavy weights are very anxious and worried people. A judgement in favour of the Moores, will begin the new transformation and reformed of the education model, where basic learning to read, write and do numeracy well will be the standard for all students. Mind you, it will come after settling and compensating parents and their children who never received the remediation services in the 3 Rs and/or inappropriate remediation.

At the Canadian Human Rights Reporter -
”  At the heart of the Moore case is a dispute over whether people with disabilities can claim that the failure to provide an additional service, which they need in order to benefit from the general public service that is offered, constitutes discrimination. Government service-providers, like the British Columbia Ministry of Education, argue strenuously that human rights complaints can only be successful if there is discrimination within the service that is already being provided. If a service is not already offered, there can be no discrimination. Their position is that the intensive remediation that Jeffrey needed was not provided by the School District at the time, and consequently there was no discrimination.”

No doubt the the American education forces will tried the above argument for the ACLU civil suit. I somehow think it will deflate when looking at the outcomes of the students of the Detroit school board.
”  We represent these children because the State and school district have simply failed to teach them to read and, in so doing, have violated Michigan law. The decision to file a lawsuit is never easy. We do this after a long and careful process of investigation that has made clear that none of those adults charged with the care of these children, under the Constitution and laws of this State, have done their jobs. “
http://www.aclumich.org/Michigan-Right-To-Read

NOT The First To Raise “EDUCATION MALPRACTICE” As A State Failure

The field of education malpractice is rather small, unsuccessful, arcane, and lacking expertise.  But, there IS some history to be aware of. (Check Google, etc.)

The first time my generation became hopeful that state negligence of statutory duties in education would help parents in their advocacy on behalf of their children related to the Peter Doe case in California in 1976.  A whole host of statutory duties were claimed to have been breached when a graduate was unable to read above a fifth-grade level or to adequately function in society.

The court denied the complaint and stated that it was up to the legislature to change the present situation in the schools.

Cynical press and parents labeled the dismissal as a typical “floodgates excuse” – preventing similar pent-up complaints from coming forward.

Three generations of “graduates” later we will see how far this “right to read” case goes. 

Already, the apologists are blaming the victim and the parents in this case —socio-economic status (SES), parental non-involvement, etc.

It will be interesting to see if the REAL issue will get any traction in this case —the willful denial of tools, voice, and remedies to parents and their representatives to advocate for, and obtain, state resources for their children’s basic education needs.

We do know, that if more choices of proven methods were accessed and applied, more children can learn to read. 

“Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” – Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN, 1948

Basically, it is the parents’ duty to see that their children are educated, and if obstacled by the state and its agents, they should have the absolute right and duty to challenge the denial of the “safety-net” the state has designed called the “universal public education system”.

It will be very instructive to see how the judgment in the Moore case addresses or ignores this dimension of the problem.