Federal Judge rules "No fundamental right to literacy"

[Angrboda]

You'll have to cite the specific amendment you're referring to here, as I'm not aware of any such amendment addressing the question.  (And while it's been a while, I'm reasonably confident that it's not in the original constitution, from what memory serves.)

According to the Bill of Rights: All citizens have the right to "life,  Liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Article 26, which was quoted by wyrd, a few posts above, would logically include those things.

I'm sorry, but that would be an incredibly weak argument even if it were true. The fact is that the line about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution. So it is not in any sense binding law. If it were a part of the constitution, it's not necessarily the case that literacy would be guaranteed as a result of those inalienable rights, as literacy doesn't appear to be a prerequisite for obtaining any of them. One might be more successful in pursuing happiness if one is literate, but it doesn't guarantee the successful pursuit of happiness, only that one, ostensibly, cannot be forbidden from pursuing it.

As to Article 26, beyond what Rev said, the guarantee of an education only mandates that one should be provided, not the specifics or accomplishments of such an education. As the article quoted in the OP says, that's left to more local powers to decide.