El Tribunal Supremo de Brasil considera ilegal la opción de educar en casa

América del sur/Brasil/26 Septiembre 2018/Fuente: El espectador

El Supremo analizó el recurso presentado por los padres de una niña que en la época tenía 11 años, después de que la secretaría de Educación del municipio de Canela, en Río Grande do Sul (Brasil), negara un pedido para que la menor estudiara en casa.

El Tribunal Supremo de Brasil (STF) negó hoy un recurso que solicitaba el derecho de que los padres puedan retirar a sus hijos de la escuela para educarlos en casa debido a la ausencia de una ley que regule esa modalidad.

La mayoría de los magistrados de la corte consideró que la educación en casa exige la aprobación de una ley que garantice una evaluación de aprendizaje en el hogar, según informó el STF en un comunicado.

El Supremo analizó el recurso presentado por los padres de una niña que en la época tenía 11 años, después de que la secretaría de Educación del municipio de Canela, en Río Grande do Sul, negara un pedido para que la menor estudiara en casa.

Los progenitores de la niña habían apelado en instancias inferiores y, tras las negativas, recurrieron al Tribunal Supremo. El único magistrado que se mostró a favor de la enseñanza en el hogar fue el juez Luis Roberto Barroso, instructor del caso, que consideró que la medida es constitucional debido a su compatibilidad de con las finalidades y los valores de la educación infantil y juvenil recogidas en la Constitución.

«Los niños que son educados en casa, de acuerdo con investigaciones relevantes, no solo tienen mejor desempeño académico, como también presentan un nivel de socialización mayor, encima de la media (…)», afirmó Barroso, quien votó en una sesión iniciada la semana pasada.

Siete jueces consideraron que la educación en casa tan solo podrá ser permitida una vez que sea aprobada una ley que la regule, mientras que otros dos magistrados consideraron que la Constitución no admite dicha modalidad de enseñanza.

De acuerdo con la página de Asociación Nacional de Educación Domiciliar de Brasil, actualmente hay 5.000 familias, con cerca de 10.000 estudiantes, que enseñan a sus hijos en el hogar.

Fuente: https://www.elespectador.com/noticias/el-mundo/el-tribunal-supremo-de-brasil-considera-ilegal-la-opcion-de-educar-en-casa-articulo-811907

Comparte este contenido:

Puerto Rico: Tribunal Supremo analiza caso de las escuelas chárteres

Centro América/Puerto Rico/16.07.18/Fuente: www.metro.pr.

El Tribunal Supremo paralizó el viernes la sentencia del Tribunal de Primera Instancia sobre la reforma educativa

El caso que lleva la Asociación de Maestros de Puerto Rico (AMPR) contra el Departamento de Educación por la reforma educativa, en particular las escuelas chárteres y vales educativos, está en manos del Tribunal Supremo.

Esto luego de que el pasado viernes, el máximo foro paralizara la determinación de inconstitucionalidad que hizo el Tribunal de Primera Instancia. 

En una resolución firmada por el juez Ernesto Dávila Rivera, secretario del Supremo, se declaró con lugar a las peticiones del gobierno en la que solicitó la paralización de la sentencia de Primera Instancia.

“Se paraliza la sentencia del Tribunal de Primera Instancia, se expide el recurso y se ordena al Tribunal de Apelaciones que a la brevedad posible remita a la Secretaría de este Tribunal los autos originales o una copia certificada de los mismos en el caso”, expone la orden.

El Supremo concedió a las partes un término de cinco días laborables para que se expresen sobre los tres señalamientos de error y los argumentos esbozados en la petición de certificación intrajurisdiccional.

La resolución ocurre luego de que el Departamento de Justicia y la Oficina del Procurador General presentaron ante el Tribunal Supremo un recurso de certificación para revisar la determinación del Tribunal de Primera Instancia que declaró inconstitucional varias disposiciones de la reforma educativa, entre ellas las escuelas chárter y los vales educativos.

La decisión fue informada por el secretario de Asuntos Públicos y Política Pública, Ramón Rosario Cortés, quien comentó que “muchos de nuestros niños y niñas llevan décadas sin recibir la educación pública de excelencia que merecen. Es lamentable que, en muchas instancias y en todo Puerto Rico, se limite la educación de excelencia a estudiantes cuyos padres tienen recursos económicos para pagar una escuela privada”.

 

Fuente de la noticia: https://www.metro.pr/pr/noticias/2018/07/15/tribunal-supremo-analiza-caso-las-escuelas-charteres.html

Comparte este contenido:

EEUU: The constitutional right to education is long overdue

América del Norte/EEUU/Diciembre 2017/https://theconversation.com/

 

Public school funding has shrunk over the past decade. School discipline rates reached historic highs. Large achievement gaps persist. And the overall performance of our nation’s students falls well below our international peers.

These bleak numbers beg the question: Don’t students have a constitutional right to something better? Many Americans assume that federal law protects the right to education. Why wouldn’t it? All 50 state constitutions provide for education. The same is true in 170 other countries. Yet, the word “education” does not appear in the United States Constitution, and federal courts have rejected the idea that education is important enough that it should be protected anyway.

After two decades of failed lawsuits in the 1970s and ‘80s, advocates all but gave up on the federal courts. It seemed the only solution was to amend the Constitution itself. But that, of course, is no small undertaking. So in recent decades, the debate over the right to education has mostly been academic.

The summer of 2016 marked a surprising turning point. Two independent groups – Public Counsel and Students Matter – filed lawsuits in Michigan and Connecticut. They argue that federal law requires those states to provide better educational opportunities for students. In May 2017, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a similar suit in Mississippi.

At first glance, the cases looked like long shots. However, my researchshows that these lawsuits, particularly in Mississippi, may be onto something remarkable. I found that the events leading up to the 14th Amendment – which explicitly created rights of citizenship, equal protection and due process – reveal an intent to make education a guarantee of citizenship. Without extending education to former slaves and poor whites, the nation could not become a true democracy.

Why a federal right to education matters

Even today, a federal constitutional right to education remains necessary to ensure all children get a fair shot in life. While students have a state constitutional right to education, state courts have been ineffective in protecting those rights.

Without a federal check, education policy tends to reflect politics more than an effort to deliver quality education. In many instances, states have done more to cut taxes than to support needy students.

And a federal right is necessary to prevent random variances between states. For instance, New York spends US$18,100 per pupil, while Idaho spends $5,800. New York is wealthier than Idaho, and its costs are of course higher, but New York still spends a larger percentage on education than Idaho. In other words, geography and wealth are important factors in school funding, but so is the effort a state is willing to make to support education.

And many states are exerting less and less effort. Recent data show that 31 states spend less on education now than before the recession – as much as 23 percent less.

States often makes things worse by dividing their funds unequally among school districts. In Pennsylvania, the poorest districts have 33 percent lessper pupil than wealthy districts. Half of the states follow a similar, although less extreme, pattern.

Studies indicate these inequities deprive students of the basic resources they need, particularly quality teachers. Reviewing decades of data, a 2014 study found that a 20 percent increase in school funding, when maintained, results in low-income students completing nearly a year of additional education. This additional education wipes out the graduation gap between low- and middle-income students. A Kansas legislative study showed that “a 1 percent increase in student performance was associated with a .83 percent increase in spending.”

These findings are just detailed examples of the scholarly consensus: Money matters for educational outcomes.

The new lawsuits

While normally the refuge for civil rights claims, federal courts have refused to address these educational inequalities.  In 1973, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected education as a fundamental right. Later cases asked the court to recognize some narrower right in education, but the court again refused.

After a long hiatus, new lawsuits are now offering new theories in federal court. In Michigan, plaintiffs argue that if schools do not ensure students’ literacy, students will be consigned to a permanent underclass. In Connecticut, plaintiffs emphasize that a right to a “minimally adequate education” is strongly suggested in the Supreme Court’s past decisions. In Mississippi, plaintiffs argue that Congress required Mississippi to guarantee education as a condition of its readmission to the Union after the Civil War.

While none of the lawsuits explicitly state it, all three hinge on the notion that education is a basic right of citizenship in a democratic society. Convincing a court, however, requires more than general appeals to the value of education in a democratic society. It requires hard evidence. Key parts of that evidence can be found in the history of the 14th Amendment itself.

The original intent to ensure education

Immediately after the Civil War, Congress needed to transform the slave-holding South into a working democracy and ensure that both freedmen and poor whites could fully participate in it. High illiteracy rates posed a serious barrier. This led Congress to demand that all states guarantee a right to education.

In 1868, two of our nation’s most significant events were occurring: the readmission of southern states to the Union and the ratification of the 14th Amendment. While numerous scholars have examined this history, few, if any, have closely examined the role of public education. The most startling thing is how much persuasive evidence is in plain view. Scholars just haven’t asked the right questions: Did Congress demand that southern states provide public education, and, if so, did that have any effect on the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment? The answers are yes.

Poster with text from the reconstructed Constitution depicting African-American leaders in Louisiana. At center is a full-length portrait of Oscar J. Dunn, lieutenant governor of Louisiana, seated at a desk. Surrounding him are 29 portraits of African-American delegates to the Louisiana Constitutional Convention of 1868. Know Louisiana

As I describe in the Constitutional Compromise to Guarantee Education, Congress placed two major conditions on southern states’ readmission to the Union: Southern states had to adopt the 14th Amendment and rewrite their state constitutions to conform to a republican form of government. In rewriting their constitutions, Congress expected states to guarantee education. Anything short was unacceptable.

Southern states got the message. By 1868, nine of 10 southern states seeking admission had guaranteed education in their constitutions. Those that were slow or reluctant were the last to be readmitted.

A newly freed African-American group of men and a few children pose near a canal against the ruins of Richmond, Virginia. Photo made after Union troops captured Richmond on April 3, 1865. Everett Historical/Shutterstock

The last three states – Virginia, Mississippi and Texas – saw Congress explicitly condition their readmission on providing education.

The intersection of southern readmissions, rewriting state constitutions and the ratification of the 14th Amendment helps to define the meaning of the 14th Amendment itself. By the time the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, state constitutional law and congressional demands had cemented education as a central pillar of citizenship. In other words, for those who passed the 14th Amendment, the explicit right of citizenship in the 14th Amendment included an implicit right to education.

The reasoning of both Congress and the state conventions was clear: “Education is the surest guarantee of the … preservation of the great principles of republican liberty.”

The rest is history. Our country went from one in which fewer than half of states guaranteed education prior to the war to one in which all 50 state constitutions guarantee education today.

The new cases before the federal courts offer an opportunity to finish the work first started during Reconstruction – to ensure that all citizens receive an education that equips them to participate in democracy. The nation has made important progress toward that goal, but I would argue so much more work remains. The time is now for federal courts to finally confirm that the United States Constitution does, in fact, guarantee students the right to quality education.

Fuente: https://theconversation.com/the-constitutional-right-to-education-is-long-overdue-88445

Fuente imagen :

 

Comparte este contenido: