While the U.S. Supreme Court has held that education is not a «fundamental interest» under the federal constitution, most state constitutions promise
children access to an adequate education.
In case lawmakers balk, a ballot initiative is in the works, as is a legal move involving a prominent Boston firm that has filed a class - action suit to lift the charter cap, arguing that it unconstitutionally denies
children access to an adequate education.
First was the legislative effort, then a ballot question, and the third alternative was a lawsuit using an elite Boston law firm to «file a class - action suit to lift the charter cap» because «it unconstitutionally denies
children access to an adequate education.»
Not exact matches
This is the modest sum which needs
to be invested each year in «social support»
to guarantee universal
access to drinking water within ten years (1,300 million individuals did not have
access in 1997), universal
access to basic
education (1,000 million people are illiterate), universal
access to basic healthcare (17 million
children die each year from easily cured illnesses), universal
access to adequate nourishment (2,000 million people suffer from anemia), universal
access to sanitary infrastructures and universal
access for women
to gynecological and obstetric care.
Also, if students with disabilities are
to meet the
adequate yearly progress goals set forth in the No
Child Left Behind Act, they must have
access to the general
education curriculum.
Over 40 years ago, California's Supreme Court recognized that a
child's
access to an
adequate education — regardless of race, ethnicity or wealth — is a fundamental right of the highest order.
Money raised through sponsorships provides a
child with life - sustaining essentials including
adequate nutrition,
access to clean water and sanitation, health care,
education and family income.