State of Michigan agrees to settle lawsuit to improve literacy in Detroit schools

The state of Michigan reached a settlement today with the plaintiffs of the Gary B. literacy case, a landmark decision that will provide the city of Detroit with increased educational funding.

The suit was initially brought forth by seven Detroit students in 2016, who argued that poor building conditions and a lack of books and quality teachers deprived them of access to literacy.

Under the settlement, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) must submit a proposal to the Michigan legislature that would give the Detroit Public School Community District at least $94.4 million for funding of “literacy-related programs and initiatives.”

Additionally, the court awarded the seven plaintiffs $280,000 to be split evenly among them so that they can “access a high-quality literacy program or otherwise further their education.”

“I have always said that every student, no matter where they come from, has a birthright to a quality public education,” Whitmer said in a statement. “Students in Detroit faced obstacles to their education that inhibited their ability to read – obstacles they never should have faced.”

She added: “Today’s settlement is a good start, but there’s more work to do to create paths to opportunity for our children. I look forward to working with the legislature to provide funding for Detroit schools and districts across the state to help ensure educators and students have the resources they need for success.” 

Last month, a federal appeals court panel ruled in favor of the Detroit students, saying that the Constitution provides a remedy to “children relegated to a school system that does not provide even a plausible chance to attain literacy.”  

Earlier in April, the Republican-led state legislature had asked that the case be heard by the full Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati because of its “exceptional importance.” Per a court rule known as “en banc,” the appeals court can technically rehear a case that has one or more issues that merit “exceptional importance.” It is unknown whether or not the court will choose this route.