A divided Sixth Circuit panel ruling in a case about bad conditions in Detroit public schools shows why federalizing education is a bad idea for everyone.
If affirmed, the ruling, which announced a newly discovered free-standing federal right to education, would give Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Bartholet a shortcut to her desired presumptive ban on homeschooling. The Sixth Circuit ruling could also open a new frontier for anyone to litigate any kind of education issue, with the Supreme Court becoming the new national referee on what a constitutional education looks like.
What could a single federal district court judge do with a free-standing, independent, federal constitutional right to education? What might a Congress do, empowered by a judicially discovered constitutional duty to provide for the federal right to education? What about a national school act, a national curriculum act, a national testing act, a national compulsory attendance act?
Do you remember Common Core? States passed it on their own to get federal money. A federal right to education would preempt even this sort of rubber-stamp state action and lead to a national, one-size-fits-none educational system. States would be powerless to object. . .
Bartholet writes in her 80-page Arizona Law Review article that up to now, “efforts to increase regulation [of homeschoolers] have been successfully fought off, with the [Home School Legal Defense Association]’s aggressive tactics playing a major role.” The solution, Bartholet writes, is the judiciary: “The courts may be essential to move things forward. Here, children are also dependent on adults — judges — to vindicate their rights. But courts can at least operate somewhat more freely than legislatures from political pressure.” (Read more from “Judges Demand Power Over All Children With Fake Constitutional Right to Education” HERE)