Federal Judge rules "No fundamental right to literacy"

[Ravenshire]

And the dumbing down of America continues.

[Anomalocaris]

Right is nothing more than desirability sanctified.

In this case, to admit something is desirable but to deny that it is a right is clearly a but a bit of rhetorical gymnastic to excuse the denying to some people, and not solely out of concern for practicality, of what is extremely desirable so as to enable others to gain more of what is even more of what is even further from a right.

I don't agree with your theory of rights.  In some sense, rights are simply privilege, sanctified.  However, we don't consider all privilege worthy of such elevation, so there is more to something being a right than mere desirability.  Not having considered the question at any length, I'm unsure what that something is and simply note that we do distinguish between things that are rights and ordinary desirables, and thus your argument encompasses an incomplete and over-simplified conception of rights.  So no, I wouldn't agree that the distinction is merely one of mental gymnastics, or at least, is not apparently so.  Given our intuitive distinction of the nature of rights, unless you have some explicit condemnation of the reasoning employed, I don't buy your argument.  It's merely a hand wave to attempt to dismiss a result you don't like.

Hardly.  Whether something indisputably highly desirable from an individual or societal perspective is recognized to be a right or not is largely determined by whether enshrining it as a right is seen as excessively constraining to those who would now or later find it expedient to deny those things outright to others, or refuse to make provision in their own actions or allocation of resources to accommodate other’s pursuit of those things.

[Angrboda]

I don't agree with your theory of rights.  In some sense, rights are simply privilege, sanctified.  However, we don't consider all privilege worthy of such elevation, so there is more to something being a right than mere desirability.  Not having considered the question at any length, I'm unsure what that something is and simply note that we do distinguish between things that are rights and ordinary desirables, and thus your argument encompasses an incomplete and over-simplified conception of rights.  So no, I wouldn't agree that the distinction is merely one of mental gymnastics, or at least, is not apparently so.  Given our intuitive distinction of the nature of rights, unless you have some explicit condemnation of the reasoning employed, I don't buy your argument.  It's merely a hand wave to attempt to dismiss a result you don't like.

Hardly.  Whether something indisputably highly desirable from an individual or societal perspective is recognized to be a right or not is largely determined by whether enshrining it as a right is seen as excessively constraining to those who would now or later find it expedient to deny those things outright to others, or refuse to make provision in their own actions or allocation of resources to accommodate other’s pursuit of those things.

Now you're just pulling shit from your ass.

[Brian37]

https://www.freep.com/story/news/educati...748052002/

So we now live in a country where you are guaranteed the right to buy a murder weapon designed specifically to murder people... but learning to read and write?  Well that's not a right at all!

As a teacher, parent, and human being--this makes me want to shake this judge as hard as I possibly can.  And this country, for that matter.  Literacy should be a fundamental right.  But I guess we want really do want to turn America into a third world country.

Yes because we want to be a third world country.

[brewer]

Not passing a test makes kids illiterate? Paleese. I doubt the 56% that didn't pass are illiterate.

[Anomalocaris]

Not passing a test makes kids illiterate? Paleese. I doubt the 56% that didn't pass are illiterate.

That depends on the test, doesn’t it.

[Joods]

@ Mh: What post are you referring to?

[brewer]

Not passing a test makes kids illiterate? Paleese. I doubt the 56% that didn't pass are illiterate.

That depends on the test, doesn’t it.

Exactly.

---

@ Mh: What post are you referring to?

It's in the article. I guess post #1.

[henryp]

If you have a school filled with kids with behavioral problems, learning disabilities, and no parental support, you're going to have a high rate of failure.

Calling success in school a right is a bit unrealistic.

Actually, the No Child Left Behind act ensures you are wrong. While I don't agree with some parts of the act, I do agree with the premise of it; that as far as educational standards go, no child be left behind. 

And as I said in my other post, all public schools receive Title IV funding. Because they do, if they want to continue receiving those federal funds, the children must be at or above certain educational standards set forth by State Educational Agencies. IDEA ensures that children with disabilities - including behavioral problems - get all the help they need from our educational system. 

FYI - I am an educational advocate for my area. I help parents who have special needs children, when the public schools want to deny their children their educational rights.

The goal is great.  But practically, you go to a really poor school, where the kids are getting beaten, or the parent just views the school as a daycare, or nobody has taught the kid anything heading into kindergarten, including how to sit still for 5 minutes or listen (or all of these things).  In those situations, where the teacher isn't just teaching them a read, they are trying to raise them like a parent while at the same time teaching 19 other kids to read.  It's just not in the cards no matter how many laws you pass.

I don't know where you live, but if you're working with parents, that means the parents are interested, which already puts them head and shoulders above some lousier schools.  And if the school is dealing with a few special needs kids, or a couple disruptive kids, it's no small task, but they can and should accommodate them.

But again, some of these schools, 8 kids out of 20 are in no position to succeed.  And they're dragging down the other 12 kids on top of it.  100% literacy is the goal, but there's only so much a teacher can do.

[Joods]

The goal is great.  But practically, you go to a really poor school, where the kids are getting beaten, or the parent just views the school as a daycare, or nobody has taught the kid anything heading into kindergarten, including how to sit still for 5 minutes or listen (or all of these things).  In those situations, where the teacher isn't just teaching them a read, they are trying to raise them like a parent while at the same time teaching 19 other kids to read.  It's just not in the cards no matter how many laws you pass.

I don't know where you live, but if you're working with parents, that means the parents are interested, which already puts them head and shoulders above some lousier schools.  And if the school is dealing with a few special needs kids, or a couple disruptive kids, it's no small task, but they can and should accommodate them.

But again, some of these schools, 8 kids out of 20 are in no position to succeed.  And they're dragging down the other 12 kids on top of it.  100% literacy is the goal, but there's only so much a teacher can do.

I'd like to see your credible sources for all of the claims that you are making in your post here. Otherwise, I'm just going to consider it that you are just basically asking us to believe you at your word. Given that schools want the federal funding - because well paychecks and pensions and teacher unions are real things - I cannot see where you are getting your facts from.