Site icon Advocatz

Cook (A.C.) v. McKee: The Case to Establish a Right to Education Under the U.S. Constitution

From the CEO of Advocatz and Editor of Advocatz.com, Betsy Combier:

America has been inundated with lawsuits for many years on the issue of exactly what the U.S. Constitution says about a sound, basic education, and how much does this cost? We have posted the inequalities which are prevalent certainly in New York, as well as throughout the United States.  The case posted here – Cook (A.C.) v McKee (formerly Cook v Raimondo) currently before the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Rhode Island will add to the definition of what education should be, who is protected under the 14th Amendment, and many other national issues. The case will be heading to the U.S. Supreme Court, and is well worth watching closely. PHOTO: ARISE website

Betsy Combier

Cook (A.C.) v McKee

The Center for Educational Equity Team
Summary of Plaintiffs’ Argument:
This case is about the perpetuation of the constitutional values upon which the viability of our democratic system of government depends. And this is not hyperbole. The District Court strongly stated that “American democracy is in peril” and in 55 pages of eloquent prose described the peril and the importance of civic education in combating it. But, in the end, Judge Smith held that all that the Constitution guarantees to students is a minimum education, that is, basic reading and writing skills. We argue instead that the Supreme Court has said that students are entitled to a meaningful “quantum of education” that will prepare them to exercise important constitutional rights like the right to vote, free speech, and full participation in the political process. Reading and writing is a sine qua non, but much more is required.
We are asking the court to rule that some amount, some quantum of civic education, is required for students to exercise these constitutional rights. For example, media literacy is an absolute requirement to exercise constitutional rights in the 21st century. If you cannot distinguish erroneous from accurate information you are not in a position to vote effectively. You also need to acquire a certain amount of civic knowledge, civic skills, civic experiences, and civic values. That’s the core legal issue in this case…are kids entitled to some meaningful civic education that is going to prepare them to fully exercise their constitutional rights.
Exactly what quantity of these skills and values, and which of them is most important, is a factual question for the district court to determine on remand. I think students need media literacy; I think they need a number of other things. But those are the points about which we have to present evidence to the district court and we’re prepared to do that.
Frankly, there was a tension between the strong statements the Supreme Court made in Brown regarding the paramount importance of education and their later holding in Rodriguez that education is not a fundamental interest under the Constitution. By saying in Rodriguez that there should be future consideration of what quantum of education is necessary to exercise important constitutional rights, the Court was trying to reconcile Brown and Rodriguez by carving out a subset of education that should be considered a fundamental right.
Yes, this would be a statement of a new right, but it would not involve the micromanaging of the curriculum in Rhode Island. The state has the discretion under such a declaration of a right to determine the details, but needs to make it a priority, to say that civic education in the 21st century, when American democracy is in peril, is really important, and not treat it as less important than other subject, as Rhode Island does now. As the Supreme Court stated in Plyler, the American people have always regarded education and the acquisition of knowledge as a matter of supreme importance.

On November 29, 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court on behalf of Rhode Island students to establish public education as a right under the U.S. Constitution. The case, Cook (A.C.) v. McKee (formerly Cook v. Raimondorenamed after former Governor Gina Raimondo left the office to become U.S. Secretary of Commerce), argues that the Constitution entitles all students to an education that prepares them to participate effectively in a democracy. It alleges that the state of Rhode Island is failing to provide tens of thousands of students throughout the state with the necessary basic education and civic participation skills.

The plaintiffs are 14 high school, middle school, elementary school, and preschool students (or parents on behalf of their children). These students attend or will attend public schools in a variety of school districts throughout Rhode Island.

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants, state officials including RI governor Daniel J. McKee, continuously violate the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, “by denying [students] a meaningful opportunity to obtain a basic education necessary to prepare them to be capable voters and jurors, to exercise effectively their right of free speech and other constitutional rights, to participate effectively and intelligently in our open political system and to function productively as civic participants.”

Rhode Island District Court Judge William Smith heard oral arguments on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case in December 2019. He issued his decision on October 13, 2020. Reluctantly dismissing the case, Judge Smith wrote:

This case does not represent a wild-eyed effort to expand the reach of substantive due process, but rather a cry for help from a generation of young people who are destined to inherit a country which we—the generation currently in charge—are not stewarding well. What these young people seem to recognize is that American democracy is in peril. Its survival, and their ability to reap the benefit of living in a country with robust freedoms and rights, a strong economy, and a moral center protected by the rule of law is something that citizens must cherish, protect, and constantly work for. We would do well to pay attention to their plea….

Plaintiffs should be commended for bringing this case. It highlights a deep flaw in our national education priorities and policies. The Court cannot provide the remedy Plaintiffs seek, but in denying that relief, the Court adds its voice to Plaintiffs’ in calling attention to their plea. Hopefully, others who have the power to address this need will respond appropriately.

Plaintiffs have now appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. A copy of their appeal brief is available below. Judge Smith’s decision has given them a road map for convincing the appeals court that judicial intervention is necessary to overcome the “deep flaw” in our nation’s education policies and priorities and remedy the educational adequacy and equity issues the case raises.

Plaintiffs are represented by a legal team led by Michael A. Rebell, professor of law and educational practice, and executive director of the Center for Educational Equity at Teachers College, Columbia University. Rebell was lead attorney in the successful New York school-funding and educational-rights case, Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) v. State of New York. He has written many books on education law, including the recently published, Flunking Democracy: Schools, Courts and Civic Participation.

RI-based co-counsel are Jennifer L. Wood, executive director of the Rhode Island Center for Justice, and Stephen Robinson and Samuel D. Zurier, who were counsel for plaintiffs in the two prior state court litigations that sought to establish a right to education under the Rhode Island State constitution.

Oral argument, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

 

 

Litigation papers

Amicus Briefs

Why was this lawsuit filed?

The lawsuit, Cook v. Raimondo, was filed on behalf of all students of Rhode Island to ask the federal court to confirm that, under the U.S. Constitution, all public school students have the right to an education that prepares them to carry out their civic responsibilities. These duties include voting, exercising free speech, serving on a jury, petitioning the government, actively engaging in civic life, and exercising all of their constitutional rights.

Preparing students to be capable citizens in a democratic society has traditionally been the main purpose of America’s public school system. Unfortunately, too many schools, particularly ones that serve students in poverty and students of color, are ill-equipped to provide this type of education. Over the past half-century, most schools have cut down on social studies and civics, and many have stopped providing students the experiences and opportunities they need to become capable citizens.

Educating all students to be knowledgeable, skilled, and committed participants in civic life is of critical importance to America’s democracy. However, educators and politicians are unlikely to make it a high priority and provide the resources necessary to accomplish this without judicial intervention.

Educators, parents, lawyers, and advocates in Rhode Island have been pressing for educational improvements for years. They have been frustrated by the failure of the state legislature and of the state courts to act to remedy blatant educational inadequacies. Rhode Island was chosen as the venue for this new federal litigation because the shortcomings of the state’s education system provide many clear examples to the courts of why judicial action is needed to ensure that students are receiving a proper civic education. For example, Rhode Island students are not required to take even a single civics course; schools lack resources for extracurricular activities prepare students for civic participation; and opportunities for English language learners throughout the state are especially limited.

Who are the plaintiffs?

The case was brought by 16 high school, middle school, elementary, and preschool students and their parents. The case bears the name of the first-named plaintiff, Aleita Cook. These students attend or will be attend public schools in a variety of school districts throughout the State of Rhode Island. The plaintiffs have brought the case on their own behalf and for a class of tens of thousands of similarly situated students throughout Rhode Island.

Who are the defendants?

The case was brought by 16 high school, middle school, elementary, and preschool students and their parents. The case bears the name of the first-named plaintiff, Aleita Cook. These students attend or will be attend public schools in a variety of school districts throughout the State of Rhode Island. The plaintiffs have brought the case on their own behalf and for a class of tens of thousands of similarly situated students throughout Rhode Island.

Who are the lawyers for the plaintiffs?

The lead counsel for the plaintiffs is Michael A. Rebell, a professor of education law and practice and executive director of the Center for Educational Equity at Teachers College, Columbia University. Rebell is an experienced litigator who was co-counsel for plaintiffs in Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) v. State of New York, a case that established a right to an opportunity for an education adequate to prepare all students to function productively as civic participants for all students in the State of New York. He has written many books on education law, including the recently published, Flunking Democracy: Schools, Courts and Civic Participation.

Rhode Island-based counsel are Jennifer L. Wood, executive director of the Rhode Island Center for Justice, and a former counsel to the Rhode Island Department of Education, and Stephen Robinson and Samuel D. Zurier, experienced litigators who were counsel for plaintiffs in the two prior state court litigations that sought to establish a right to education under the Rhode Island state constitution.

Peter Neronha, the Attorney General of the State Rhode Island, is representing the governor and the legislative leaders; Anthony F. Cottone is the attorney for the commissioner of education, the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education, and the Rhode Island State Board of Education.

Why was the case filed in federal court?

Preparing students for capable and committed civic participation is — or should be– a national priority for everyone living in the United States. Some state courts have affirmed students’ right to an education adequate for capable citizenship under their state constitutions; other state courts have not. No state courts have taken active steps to enforce this right.

The United States needs a clear, strong, and uniform message that all students have a right to an education that prepares them properly to take on their roles as active citizens in our democratic society. That message can only be provided by the federal courts — and ideally from the United States Supreme Court.

How likely is the case to succeed?

It is impossible to predict how the federal courts — – and the U.S. Supreme Court should it agree to hear this case — will rule. Our complaint does, however, present strong arguments under the equal protection, due process, privileges and immunities sections of the federal constitution to support our claims. Furthermore, in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez in 1973, the Supreme Court specifically indicated that there may be a right to capable citizenship under the U.S. Constitution but that the plaintiffs in that case did not provide sufficient evidence for the Court to consider that issue. We intend to provide such evidence so that this issue that the Court itself identified as being important can now be decided.

Civic education is a non-partisan issue. Every person living in the United States can recognize the importance to our democracy of having children prepared for civic life. Judges in particular, by the nature of their work and their commitment to constitutional values, tend to be especially supportive of civic ideals.

What will happen if the plaintiffs win?

Within Rhode Island, victory would require the state to implement a plan to improve their educational system substantially and to ensure that all students receive an opportunity for an education adequate to prepare them for capable citizenship. A Supreme Court ruling that students have a fundamental right to such an education would also be binding on states and school districts throughout the country, and policymakers in each state would need to take whatever steps might be necessary to ensure that the educational opportunities provided to all of their students meet constitutional requirements.

Media Coverage

The Center for Educational Equity
Teachers College, Columbia University

525 West 120th Street
New York, NY 10027

Exit mobile version