A New York state appeals court last week reversed a lower court ruling that the state was not meeting its obligation to provide students in New York City with a sound, basic education. The appeals court ruled that schools are obligated by the state constitution "to do nothing more than prepare students for low-level jobs, for serving on a jury and for reading campaign literature-the equivalent, the court suggested, of an eight- or ninth- grade education," according to New York Times reporters Robert Worth and Anemona Hartocolis. The appellate judges suggested that the lower court had overreached in defining what the state constitution requires, and that it was not the job of a court to set an ideal standard, but only to determine what a constitutional human right to education entails; barring catastrophe, it is up to politicians to make further decisions about education and to be voted out of office if citizens grow unhappy. While courts in other states have taken more expansive views of the state's obligation to provide an education, experts say that the differences among court decisions have more to do with how willing judges are to become involved in making policy than with the language of different state constitutions about education. For more, see "Johnny Can Read, but Well Enough to Vote?" by Robert Worth and Anemona Hartocolis, The New York Times, June 30, 2002.
