麻豆精品

Top Takeaways is a series of recaps from important conversations, town halls, webinars and virtual events about early learning.

On Aug. 31, held a webinar called The Rights of Children in America: Do We Need a Constitutional Amendment? Provocative? You bet. Elliot Haspel, a contributor to Early Learning Nation, served as moderator for the conversation.

He explained that he intended it as a thought exercise. What would 鈥渁 children鈥檚 amendment鈥� to the U.S. Constitution look like? Remember, the , which states that 鈥渆quality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex,鈥� still hasn鈥檛 been ratified, even after 49 years of advocacy. Haspel sought to draw out lessons from this struggle, as well as from those that led to the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960.

Haspel was joined by four law professors:

• , the dean and a professor of law at Howard University School of Law
• , the Elizabeth D. and Richard A. Merrill Professor of Law, a professor of education in the Curry School of Education, and a professor of law, education and public policy in the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy at the University of Virginia
• , the Robert G. Storey Distinguished Faculty Fellow, a Gerald J. Ford Research Fellow and a professor of law in the Dedman School of Law at Southern Methodist University
• , a Distinguished University Professor and professor of law at Georgia State University College of Law

Watch the conversation:

Our top takeaways:

1.  The U.S. is exceptional (and not in a good way), part I. There is currently no right to child care in the U.S. Or to education, for that matter, something that, , exists in 155 other countries. 鈥淲e鈥檙e out of line with rest of developed nations,鈥� said Robinson. 鈥淥ther nations have read the research. They鈥檝e seen that investing more in poor kids allows them to compete better. We invest more in affluent children and leave so many behind, and it鈥檚 a problem for the entire nation.鈥�

U.S. law, said Todres, focuses on civil and political rights but is silent on economic and social cultural rights. In contrast to our right to demonstrate or to vote, we have federal and state programs and policies, which can be changed or taken away at any time. Moreover, all too often the law on the books is at odds with how it鈥檚 implemented and enforced.

2. The U.S. is exceptional (and not in a good way), part II. We are the lone holdouts on the , and this circumstance undermines our ability to speak out on the world stage. 鈥淩atification would re-establish U.S. as a leader in children鈥檚 rights,鈥� said Todres, but he noted that charged political language and scare tactics have stood in the way.

3. Using a rights framework can help to highlight the issues. Holley-Walker explained that if something is a right, the government is obligated to provide it, and there has to be a remedy for those who are denied it. 鈥淲ithout rights, there is no uniformity,鈥� she said. As a result, we鈥檙e stuck with a non-system that isn鈥檛 working for our children, with too much variation from state to state and district to district.

Acknowledging that the chances of a children鈥檚 amendment are practically nonexistent, she said discussion of an amendment could drive advocacy. In Todres鈥檚 view, when we ask ourselves What must change? 鈥淭he answer can鈥檛 be that no change is necessary.鈥�

Noting that children were plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court case banning segregation, Weaver added, 鈥淲e must encourage our law students to represent children and give them a voice in court.鈥�

4. Children鈥檚 rights are climate rights. The humans who are going to pay the greatest price for climate change are the ones who bear the least responsibility for it and who have the least power to bring about change. According to Holley-Walker, 鈥淭he ability of children to reshape the political discourse around climate will be critical if we want to see change.鈥� A younger voting age, she said, 鈥渨ould be earth shaking.鈥� Weaver noted that children (meaning 16- and 17-year-olds) may or may not vote like their parents, but they if they had the right, they would see themselves as enfranchised, and Todres added, 鈥淚f you [as a society] don鈥檛 see children as rights holders, you don鈥檛 see them as constituents.鈥�

5. Intermediate steps are possible. Todres said there are opportunities to build institutional support for children鈥檚 rights at the federal level. He mentioned the possibility of a cabinet-level appointee鈥攁 children鈥檚 czar鈥攚ho could conduct child impact assessments in advance of regulatory steps. (Wales, in the U.K., has .)

At the same time, Robinson stressed the importance of staying vigilant with regard to the rights we do have. 鈥淓ven victories can be undone,鈥� she warned, citing the Jim Crow Era.

She and the other panelists found encouraging signs in today鈥檚 wave of youth activism. 鈥淧eople are waking up to injustice,鈥� said Robinson. 鈥淎 whole generation of young people realizes racial inequality is pervasive. That鈥檚 a big improvement over my generation saying a civil rights movement was successful.鈥�

This story originally published on Early Learning Nation and is now archived on 麻豆精品. Learn more here.