Education

OVERVIEW

The human right to education is a fundamental, but limited, right under international human rights law. While multiple treaties address the right to education, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child explicitly outline States’ obligations to fully realize the right to education. The core component of the right requires States to provide free compulsory primary education, and prohibits discrimination in schooling. Additionally, education should lay the groundwork for self-realization and effective participation in society; parents should have some freedom to choose the manner in which their children are educated; academic pursuits should be ensured and respected by the State; and public education must be equally accessible to all, irrespective of gender, race, national origin, or able-bodiedness.

The right to education is not an end in itself, but rather a “powerful tool by which economically and socially marginalized adults and children can lift themselves out of poverty and participate fully as citizens.” See UNESCO, Education: The Right to Education. In order to do so, education must be aimed toward “the full development of the human personality.” See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 26(2); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art. 13(1).

Significant disparities exist in the implementation of the right to education, however. In many countries, males continue to receive educational preference over females. There are still an estimated 793 million adults lacking basic literacy skills—two-thirds of them (508 million) are women. See UNESCO, World Atlas of Gender Equality in Education (2012), pp. 21, 93. A community beset by severe poverty and starvation may prioritize a child’s contributions to the household chores or income over schooling. The costs of uniforms, transportation, and school supplies can be prohibitive for many families, and a lack of access to basic necessities may keep students – especially girls – from full participation in the classroom. Wherever communities are affected by armed conflict and forced displacement, these realities are also likely to disrupt children’s schooling.

Legal Protections

A number of international and regional human rights instruments recognize the right to education. The articles that establish the right to education are highlighted below, although the instruments may also contain provisions addressing education in other contexts, such as in health or employment settings.

The extent to which individuals can claim legal protection of their right to education depends upon which treaties their State government has ratified. States that ratify treaties are legally obligated to respect, protect, and fulfill the rights contained in those treaties. The obligation to respect means States cannot interfere with enjoyment of the right. The obligation to protect requires the State to reasonably prevent other actors from interfering with enjoyment of the right. The obligation to fulfill mandates that the State actively take steps to create the conditions necessary for individuals’ full enjoyment of the right. See, e.g., OHCHR, Fact Sheet No. 33, Frequently Asked Questions on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, p. 11.

The International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights (ICESCR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) are the most widely-applicable treaties that include the right to education. Of the 193 United Nations Member States, more than 160 have ratified the ICESCR, and nearly all are party to the CRC.

The following non-binding declarations and statements of principles also address the right to education:

Declarations and principles are described as “soft law” because they are not legally enforceable. However, these commitments are important because they reflect international consensus as to what the protection of international human rights requires. Soft law frequently paves the way for the development of legally enforceable agreements and can also be used to interpret what legally enforceable commitments may require of States. See, e.g., Walter Kälin & Jörg Künzli, The Law of International Human Rights Protection 74–76 (2009).

State Obligations

Human rights are often categorized as either civil and political rights, or as economic, social, and cultural rights. The right to education falls under the latter category of rights, which generally requires States to progressively realize the right. This means that States have the obligation to “take steps toward” fully realizing the right to education, using the maximum of available resources. ICESCR, art. 2. The nature and quantity of resources available to the State are taken into account when determining if a State is meeting this obligation. CESCR, General Comment No. 3: The Nature of States Parties Obligations, UN Doc. E/1991/23(SUPP), 1 January 1991, paras. 2, 9. States have a duty to initiate these steps within a reasonably short time, and the steps must be taken “as expeditiously as possible.” Id.

Some aspects of the right to education must be implemented immediately, and not progressively. States must ensure freedom from discrimination in education, and must provide free, compulsory primary education – regardless of the resources available to the government. See id. at para. 5.

Further, States may not deliberately take actions that prevent realization of the right to education, which are known as retrogressive measures. States must fully justify any government action that impedes or reduces enjoyment of the right to education. See id. at para. 9.

States are required to take measures toward ensuring that education is equally accessible, available, acceptable, and adaptable, while prioritizing the best interests of the student. See CESCR, General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education, UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/10, 8 December 1999, paras. 6, 7. To help States understand their obligations, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Education, Katarina Tomasevski, developed the following “4 As” scheme identifying the essential features of the right to education. First, education must be made physically and economically accessible to all without discrimination. Part of this includes making schools affordable and either accessible via modern technology or located within a safe physical distance that students can reach. Second, for education to be available, educational institutions must provide sufficient protection from outside elements, have adequate teaching materials, trained teachers, safe drinking water, and sanitation facilities. Third, acceptable education entails quality instruction on relevant and culturally appropriate topics. Fourth, adaptable education requires schools to be flexible so that they can respond to varying student needs and accommodate different learning styles. See id. at para. 6; UN Comm’n on Human Rights, Preliminary Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1999/49, 13 January 1999, paras. 51–74.

Related Areas of Law

During armed conflict or occupation, international humanitarian law requires occupying powers to respect and ensure the continued provision of education, meaning that children shall be allowed to attend schools and the occupying power shall cooperate with the national and local authorities to “facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children.” See Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, arts. 50(1), 94. If these institutions are inadequate, then the occupying power must “make arrangements for the maintenance and education, if possible by persons of their own nationality, language and religion, of children who are orphaned or separated from their parents.” See id., art. 50. The physical destruction of educational institutions is prohibited unless it is absolutely necessary, and education must be provided to civilian detainees. See id. at arts. 53, 94, 142. Violations of these provisions can constitute war crimes, for which individuals may be held criminally liable. See, e.g., Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 8(2)(b)(ix), 8(2)(e)(iv).

REALIZING THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION

This section discusses the goals of education, and explains the components of the right to education and the different contexts under which it applies, including: the requirement of non-discrimination, equal access to education, free compulsory primary education, secondary and higher education, instruction in minority languages, discipline and corporal punishment, safe learning environment, rights of parents and legal guardians, health and education, and academic freedom.

The Goals of Education

Education should be directed to the “full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms” by promoting “understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups.” UDHR, art. 26. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) states that education should also develop: the child’s talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential; respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values; respect for the national values of the country in which the child is living and the country from which he or she may originate; and respect for the natural environment. CRC, art. 29.

Education is an “indispensable tool” that helps individuals deal with challenges they will face in their lifetimes and promotes the enjoyment of other human rights. See CRC, General Comment No. 1: Aims of Education, UN Doc. CRC/GC/2001/1, 17 April 2001, para. 3. As such, education should ensure that individuals develop essential life skills, which include “not only literacy and numeracy but also… the ability to make well-balanced decisions; to resolve conflicts in a non-violent manner; and to develop a healthy lifestyle, good social relationships and responsibility, critical thinking, creative talents, and other abilities.” Id. at para. 9.

To protect children’s physical, mental, spiritual, and social development, States are obligated to take measures toward ensuring that children are protected from performing labor that is likely to interfere with their education. See, e.g., CRC, art. 32. These measures may include establishing a minimum age for employment, regulating hours and conditions of employment, and creating appropriate sanctions for any violation of those standards. Id.

Regional bodies also work toward developing an educational environment that is sensitive to and respectful of different cultures. For example, the African Union established the Cultural Charter for Africa, under which African States agree to introduce African cultural values and African languages into education. See Cultural Charter for Africa, arts. 10, 18, 19. The Charter provides that the “introduction of African languages at all levels of education should have to go hand-in-hand with literacy work among the people at large.” Id. at art. 18. The Council of Europe seeks to protect cultural diversity through the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which calls for “measures in the fields of education and research to foster knowledge of the culture, history, language and religion of their national minorities and of the majority.” Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, art. 12. In the case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, the Inter-American Commission mentioned that the State needs to provide permanent educational services to members of the Community in a “culturally pertinent manner, taking into account its customs and traditions.” See I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 219.

The Requirement of Non-Discrimination

States are required to provide access to education without discrimination, and this obligation must be applied immediately and fully. See CRC, art. 2; CESCR, General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education, UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/10, 8 December 1999, para. 31. The American Convention on Human Rights, Protocol of San Salvador, African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights, among others, contain similar provisions. See American Convention on Human Rights, art. 1; Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights “Protocol of San Salvador”, art. 3; African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Duties, art. 2; European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 14. See also UNESCO, Convention against Discrimination in Education.

States have a duty to both ensure that access to education is free from gender discrimination by taking special measures to ensure that women have access to education, which will in turn empower females and help to combat gender discrimination more broadly. Education has a vital role in empowering women and safeguarding children from exploitation. CESCR, General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education, para 1.

The Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) requires States to take all appropriate measures to eliminate gender discrimination in education. CEDAW, art. 10. For example, while States are required to take measures that encourage regular attendance at schools and reduce drop-out rates of all students, CEDAW further obligates States to reduce female student drop-out rates and organize programs for females that have left school prematurely. Id. at art. 10(f); CRC, art. 28(1)(e).

Regional instruments also particularly protect girls and women’s right to education. See, e.g., Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, art. 12; African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, art. 11; African Youth Charter, art. 13; Revised European Social Charter, arts. E, 7, 10, 17; Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights “Protocol of San Salvador”, arts. 13, 16. For example, the Inter-American Court stated that “the State must pay special attention to the needs and the rights of the alleged victims [who were denied access to education] owing to their condition as girl children, who belong to a vulnerable group.” I/A Court H.R., Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 134. States cannot provide access to schools as a de facto means of segregation, nor can school placement have a disproportionately prejudicial effect. Automatic enrollment in an inferior or special needs school due to ethnicity or nationality violates the right to education and the prohibition on discrimination. See ECtHR, D.H. and Others v. Czech Republic, [GC], no. 57325/00, ECHR 2007-IV, Judgment of 13 November 2007. A child’s access to education cannot be made conditional on the registration of his or her parents’ place of residence. See ECtHR, Timishev. v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, ECHR 2005-XII, Judgment of 13 December 2005.

States are prohibited from discriminating against migrants and refugees in providing access to education. For example, the State cannot charge migrant students a special fee for secondary education while allowing national students to attend free of charge. See ECtHR, Ponomaryovi v. Bulgaria, no. 5335/05, ECHR 2011, Judgment of 30 August 2011. States cannot charge refugees prohibitive fees to access education, and the State is required to recognize any foreign school certificates, diplomas, and degrees that the refugee has obtained. See Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, art. 22. Children must be provided with an education regardless of their own citizenship or residence status. See I/A Court H.R., Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico Children v. The Dominican Republic. For example, the Inter-American Court held that the State’s refusal to admit a student because she lacked a birth certificate violated the American Convention, holding that the State should comply with its “obligation to guarantee access to free primary education for all children, irrespective of their origin or parentage, which arises from the special protection that must be provided to children.” Id. at para. 244.

States are required to extend assistance to ensure that individuals with disabilities have effective access to education, to the extent State resources allow it. CRC, art. 23. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) requires States to ensure that people with disabilities “can access an inclusive, quality and free primary education and secondary education on an equal basis with others.” See CRPD, art. 24(2)(a). Regional instruments contain similar provisions. See, e.g., Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights “Protocol of San Salvador”, art. 13(3)(e); Revised European Social Charter, art. 15; see also African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, art. 13.

Beyond prohibiting discrimination, the right to education requires inclusion. See UN Human Rights Council, Thematic Study on the Right of Persons with Disabilities to Education: Report of the OHCHR, UN Doc. A/HRC/25/29, 18 December 2013. Education should teach students to have respect for differences, and challenge all aspects of discrimination. CRC, General Comment No. 1: Aims of Education, para. 11. Inclusion is a “dynamic approach of responding positively to pupil diversity and of seeing individual differences not as problems, but as opportunities for enriching learning.” UNESCO, Guidelines for Inclusion: Ensuring Access to Education for All (2005), 12.

Equal Access to Education

Guaranteeing equal access to education requires States to remove economic and social barriers to education. To this end, the ICESCR states that the “development of a system of schools at all levels shall be actively pursued, an adequate fellowship system shall be established, and the material conditions of teaching staff shall be continuously improved.” ICESCR, art. 13(2)(e). This requires States to create and ensure the existence of a school system and to “enhance the equality of educational access for individuals from disadvantaged groups.” See CESCR, General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education, para. 26. The ICESCR adds that higher education should be equally accessible on the basis of merit, and that technical and vocational training should be made generally accessible to all. ICESCR, art. 13(2).

In order to provide equal access to education, States are obligated to equally distribute educational resources. The CESCR has noted that “[s]harp disparities in spending policies that result in differing qualities of education” may constitute discrimination. CESCR, General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education, para. 35. For example, States are obligated to ensure equal access to education among males and females in both urban and rural areas, which involves ensuring that females receive the same quality of education and academic resources as males, as well as the same opportunities to benefit from scholarships or programs of continuing education. See CEDAW, art. 10.

States have a duty to ensure that people in detention are not discriminated against in gaining access to education. People in detention may include those who have not yet been convicted of a crime but are in pre-trial detention, undocumented migrants who are in administrative detention centers, and people in health centers. See Right to Education Project, Persons in Detention.

States are required to take measures to provide children in conflict with the law with appropriate support and assistance necessary to reintegrate into society, including access to education. See CRC, General Comment No. 10: Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice, UN Doc. CRC/C/GC/10, 25 April 2007, para. 7. For example, within the juvenile justice system, States should provide treatment and education directed toward the development of respect for human rights and freedoms. See id. at para. 13. The Committee on the Rights of the Child stated that every child of compulsory school age has the right to education, and children who are institutionalized or hospitalized “should be given the maximum possible opportunity to enjoy all [their] rights,” including the right to education. See id. at para. 89; CRC, General Comment No. 4: Adolescent Health and Development, para. 29.

Free Compulsory Primary Education

The UN Educational and Scientific Organization has declared that primary education “must be universal, ensure that the basic learning needs of all children are satisfied, and take into account the culture, needs and opportunities of the communities.” See UNESCO, World Declaration on Education for All, art. 5. The primary school stage has been loosely defined as the first four or more grade levels for children between the ages of four and twelve.

The obligation that States provide free compulsory primary education is the core component of the right to education, and it must be immediately implemented. See CRC, art 28(a); ICESCR, art. 13(2)(a); CESCR, General Comment No. 3: The Nature of States Parties Obligations, para. 5. The duty to provide compulsory primary education means that the State must generally require all children to attend school. See UDHR, art. 26(1). If a significant number of children within a State are deprived of primary education, that State is failing to discharge its obligation under the Covenant. See id.; CESCR, General Comment No. 3: The Nature of States Parties Obligations, para. 10. To excuse this failure, the State must demonstrate it is unable to immediately implement free primary education despite using all available resources. See id.

The Charter of the Organization of American States, Protocol of San Salvador, American Declaration, African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, European Social Charter, and the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, among others, contain similar provisions stating that primary education shall be free. See Charter of the Organization of American States, art. 49(a); Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights “Protocol of San Salvador”, art. 13(3)(a); American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, art. XII; African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, art. 11(3)(b); European Social Charter, art. 17(2); UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, art 4.

Requiring primary education be free obligates States to remove any direct costs associated with primary school attendance, including tuition or fees. The CESCR has interpreted this component of the right to prohibit indirect costs on a case-by-case basis, noting that it could be impermissible to require students to purchase a prohibitively expensive school uniform. CESCR, General Comment No. 11: Plans of Action for Primary Education, UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/4, 10 May 1999, para. 7.

States have interpreted “free education” differently. For example, the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic held that the State is required to cover costs related to establishing and maintaining educational facilities, but is not responsible for covering all costs directly related to attendance; charging students for basic school materials did not violate the right to education under the European Charter on Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the ICESCR. See Czech Republic Constitutional Court, School Material Decision, Pl. ÚS 25/94, CZE-1995-2-008, Judgment, 13 June 1995 (Czech only). The Court held that in primary and secondary education the State may not charge tuition. See id. The Brazilian Tribunal of the State Minas Gerais has held that the right to free and compulsory education includes free transportation if students are otherwise unable to attend school. See UN Comm’n on Human Rights, Information Provided by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, Ms. Katarina Tomasevski, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/WG.23/CRP.4, 3 February 2004, p. 7 (citing decision of the Tribunal of the State Minas Gerais (TMG)) concerning Apelação Civel No. 000.197.843-6/2000).

The compulsory component of the right establishes that primary school attendance is not optional, and that States, along with parents and guardians, have a duty to ensure that children have access to education. See CESCR, General Comment No. 11: Plans of Action for Primary Education, para. 6. The CESCR added that this requirement underscores the prohibition on gender discrimination in education, as it seeks to ensure that girls are sent to school. See id.

In an inadmissibility decision, the European Court of Human Rights observed the lack of consensus among States regarding the notion of “compulsory” schooling, in that some States permit home education while others require attendance at either a public or private institution. See ECtHR, Konrad and Others v. Germany, no. 35504/03, ECHR 2006-XIII, Judgment of 11 September 2006, para. I. States appear to have discretion on which, if any, homeschooling programs to fund. Parents of homeschool children that applied for, but did not receive, funding from the State cannot claim discrimination if a State-funded public school alternative exists for the child. See Human Rights Committee, Carl Henrik Blom v. Sweden, Communication No. 191/1985, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2 at 216 (1990).

The right to free compulsory primary education is justiciable, meaning that it is capable of being evaluated or enforced by a court. See CESCR, General Comment No. 3: The Nature of States Parties Obligations, para. 5. For example, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court of Justice held that the right to education was justiciable under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, rejecting the argument that the right to education was not justiciable because it fell “within the directive principles of state policy.” See ECOWAS Court of Justice, SERAP v. Nigeria and UBEC, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/APP/0808 of 27 October 2009, para. 19.

States parties to the ICESCR that have not implemented free and compulsory primary education have two years to adopt a detailed action plan that provides for its progressive implementation within a reasonable period. See ICESCR, art. 14. All sections of civil society should participate in formulating the plan, which should include a periodic review process to ensure accountability. See CESCR, General Comment No. 11: Plans of Action for Primary Education, para. 8. If states do not have the resources to adopt a detailed plan, “the international community has a clear obligation to assist.” Id. at para. 9. To request assistance, States should reach out to international agencies including the International Labor Organization; UN Development Program; UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; UN Children’s Fund; the International Monetary Fund; and the World Bank. See id. at para. 11.

Secondary and Higher Education

The ICESCR requires States to develop and continuously improve a school system containing all academic levels, including fundamental education for those who have not completed primary education. See ICESCR, art. 13(2). Secondary education must be made “generally available and accessible to all,” and higher education shall be accessible to all on the basis of capacity. Id., art. 13(2). States should progressively introduce free secondary education and higher education. Id.

The ICESCR and the CRC obligate States to make secondary and higher education accessible through the progressive introduction of free education. See ICESCR, art. 13(2)(b)-(c); CRC, art. 28(1). States party to the CRC are encouraged to offer financial assistance in the case of need. CRC, art. 28(1)(b). Similarly, the American Declaration states that the right to a free education extends “at least” through the primary level. See American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, art XII. The African Commission held that the State violated the right to education when it failed to provide basic services that resulted in universities and secondary schools closing for two years. ACommHPR, Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v. Zaire, Communication Nos. 25/89-47/90-56/91-100/93, 18th Ordinary Session, 4 April 1996, paras. 4, 48. The complainants alleged that the State’s failure was due, in part, to its mismanagement of public funds. See id. at para. 4.

Vocational education is training that prepares individuals for employment in a particular industry. Through the right to education, States are required to take steps toward fully realizing vocational education, including making it progressively free. See ICESCR, art. 13(2)(b); CRC, art. 28(1)(b). States should make “educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children.” CRC, art. 28(1)(d). Vocational training is also addressed as a component of the right to work. See ICESCR, art. 6(2).

Discipline and Corporal Punishment

States have a duty to ensure that “school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity.” CRC, art. 28(2). To this end, States must take measures toward prohibiting and eliminating corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment of children. See CRC, General Comment No. 8: The Right of the Child to Protection from Corporal Punishment and other Cruel or Degrading Forms of Punishment, UN Doc. CRC/C/GC/8, 2 March 2007, para. 2. Education must be provided in a way that respects strict limits on discipline and promotes non-violence. CRC, General Comment No. 1: Aims of Education, para. 8.

Beyond the classroom setting, States must ensure that “positive, non-violent relationships and education are consistently promoted to parents, care [givers], teachers and all others who work with children and families.” CRC, General Comment No. 8: The Right of the Child to Protection from Corporal Punishment and other Cruel or Degrading Forms of Punishment, para. 46. This may involve engaging in awareness-raising campaigns, public education, and training to promote non-violence. See id. at para. 49.

Safe Learning Environment

Children should have a safe learning environment, which is “child-friendly, inspiring and motivating,” in schools that “foster a humane atmosphere and allow children to develop according to their evolving capacities.” CRC, General Comment No. 1: Aims of Education, CRC/C/2001/1, 17 April 2001, para. 12. The “school environment itself must thus reflect the freedom and the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin.” Id. at para. 19.

Furthermore, States must focus on the quality of the learning environment, which includes teaching and academic resources, to guarantee the right to receive an education of good quality. Id. at para. 22. To this end, States are obligated to adopt minimum educational standards to ensure that all schools offer quality education for both boys and girls. See ICESCR, art. 13; CRC, art. 29(2). The school building should be able to protect students from the elements, have an appropriate number of classrooms, provide safe water, and have separate sanitation facilities for boys and girls. CESCR, General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education, UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/10, 8 December 1999, para. 6.

States have a duty to protect the right to education in the face of attacks on schools. The Committee on the Rights of the Child stated that the values embodying the right to education are “relevant to children living in zones of peace but they are even more important for those living in situations of conflict or emergency.” CRC, General Comment No. 1: Aims of Education, at para. 16. For example, gender discrimination is often reinforced by attacks on schools that are intended to discourage girls’ participation. Under international human rights law, States have a duty to prevent and respond to attacks so that students are safe and their right to an education is protected. The human right to education is inalienable, and does not cease when violence occurs. For example, if a school can no longer be used for educational purposes due to an attack, States have an obligation to relocate students and teachers to a safe location where education may continue. See, e.g., Human Rights Watch, Schools as Battlegrounds: Protecting Students, Teachers, and Schools from Attack, 2011. If attacks on schools occur in the context of an armed conflict, then international humanitarian law applies. See above “Related Areas of Law” section.

Rights of Parents and Legal Guardians

Parents and legal guardians have the educational freedom to ensure the religious and moral education of their children conforms to their own convictions. See CESCR, General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education, UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/10, 8 December 1999, para. 28. Other international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Protocol of San Salvador, American Convention on Human Rights, First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, and the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, among others, contain similar provisions. See Universal Declaration on Human Rights, art. 26(3); Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights “Protocol of San Salvador”, art. 13(4); American Convention on Human Rights, art. 12(4); Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 2; African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, art. 11(4); UNESCO, Convention against Discrimination in Education, art. 5(1)(b).

The right to educational freedom allows parents and guardians to decide if their child will attend a public school, private school, or be homeschooled. The State is obligated to respect this decision, provided that the schools conform to the State’s minimum educational standards. ICESCR, art. 13(3). While the right to education does not necessarily entail the right to attend a particular school, parents and legal guardians have the right to choose the type of education their children receive. See, e.g., id.; CRC, art. 29; ECtHR, Ali v. the United Kingdom no. 40385/06, Judgment of 11 January 2011.

The right to education under the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights requires the State to “respect parents’ convictions, be they religious or philosophical, throughout the entire State education program.” See ECtHR, Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, ECtHR, Series A no. 23, Judgment of 7 December 1976, para. 51. However, educational freedom does not necessarily require States to respect parent and guardians’ linguistic preferences for their child’s education. ECtHR, Case “relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium” v. Belgium, ECtHR, Series A no. 6, Judgment of 23 July 1968, para. I.B.6.

Educational freedom includes the right to remove children from specific lessons that are not ideologically objective. Public school curriculum may include the general history of religion and ethics, despite parental objections, so long as the lessons are presented in an unbiased and objective manner. CESCR, General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education, para. 28. However, if the curriculum focuses on a specific religion or belief, then States must allow children full exemption from the lessons if their parents request it. See id. ECtHR, Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, no. 1448/04, Judgment of 9 October 2007.

In public schools, the State is not obligated to accede to parents’ requests to remove their children from compulsory secular ethics classes that do not align with their religious sentiments as long as the classes are presented in a neutral manner. The European Court of Human Rights stated that the right to education does not entail “a right not to be exposed to convictions contrary to one’s own.” See ECtHR, Appel-Irrgang v. Germany, no. 45216/07, ECHR 2009, Judgment of 6 October 2009. Additionally, States may require that mandatory sex education classes be attended by all students, even those whose religious faiths preclude them from engaging in sexual behavior. See ECtHR, Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, nos. 5095/71, 5920/72, 5926/72, Judgment of 7 December 1976. The European Court reasoned that the course sought to provide students with accurate information, did not attempt to indoctrinate students, and did not affect parents’ rights to advise their children differently. See Id. at paras. 49–55.

Health and Education

The right to health and the right to education are interdependent. States have a duty to take appropriate measures to “ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition, the advantages of breastfeeding, hygiene and environmental sanitation and the prevention of accidents.” CRC, art. 24(2)(e). The CRC also obligates States to take measures to develop preventive health care, including “family planning education.” Id. at art. 24(2)(f).

Regional agreements also include provisions requiring States to adopt education toward “the prevention and treatment of health problems.” E.g., Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights “Protocol of San Salvador”, art. 10(2)(e); see also African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, art. 14(2)(f); European Social Charter, art. 11.

Furthermore, access to health education helps to ensure women have equal rights with men in the field of education. See CEDAW, art. 10. CEDAW requires States to eliminate discrimination against women by ensuring access to “specific educational information to help to ensure the health and well-being of families, including information and advice on family planning.” Id. To this end, States should also “develop policies that will allow adolescent mothers to continue their education.” CRC, General Comment No. 4: Adolescent Health and Development in the Context of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, UN Doc. CRC/GC/2003/4, 1 July 2003, para. 31.

Academic Freedom

The right to education “can only be enjoyed if accompanied by the academic freedom of staff and students.” CESCR, General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education, UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/10, 8 December 1999, para 38. Academic freedom is the liberty to “express freely opinions about the instruction or system in which [one works], to fulfil [one’s] functions without discrimination or fear of repression by the State or any other actor, [and] to participate in professional or representative academic bodies.” See id. at para. 39. The European Court of Human Rights has underlined the importance of academic freedom, stating that it “comprises the academics’ freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work and freedom to distribute knowledge and truth without restriction.” ECtHR, Sorguc v. Turkey no. 17089/03, Judgment of 23 September 2009, para. 35.

In higher education, staff and students are “especially vulnerable to political and other pressures that undermine academic freedom” due to substantial public investments made in higher education; however, individuals are entitled to academic freedom throughout all stages of education. Id. at paras. 38–40. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights held that the Republic of Botswana violated Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, protecting the freedom of expression, when the President deported a university professor for writing an article criticizing Botswana’s presidential succession process. See ACommHPR, Good v. Republic of Botswana, Communication No. 313/05, 47th Ordinary Session, 26 May 2010, paras. 196–200.

MONITORING & ENFORCEMENT

The following bodies specifically monitor and enforce States’ compliance with their obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill the right to education:

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) oversees States parties’ implementation of the ICESCR, which protects the right to education. Every five years States parties to the Covenant are required to submit to the CESCR a report explaining the progress they have made in implementing the Covenant’s provisions. The CESCR then issues non-binding Concluding Observations, assessing States’ compliance with their obligations under the ICESCR.

The Optional Protocol to the ICESCR created an individual complaint mechanism, an inter-State complaint mechanism, and enabled the CESCR to conduct inquiries into grave or systematic violations. States must have ratified the Optional Protocol in order for these measures to be available. To use the individual complaint mechanism, applicants are generally required to exhaust domestic remedies before submitting a communication to the CESCR. In considering how reasonable the State has been in implementing the right to education, the CESCR evaluates the communication and any information submitted by the State. It may also seek information from international organizations, and regional human rights bodies. The Committee issues its views and recommendations to the parties, and the State has six months to provide the CESCR with a written response detailing measures it has taken to realize the right to education. The CESCR may issue temporary measures to address the problem before making a judgment on the merits. See Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights.

The Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council are independent experts that annually report their findings to the UN and advise on human rights issues. One such special procedure, the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, is responsible for gathering information on the status of the human right to education throughout the world, including by carrying out country visits and receiving individual complaints; engaging in constructive dialogue with governments and other stakeholders regarding implementation of the right to education; identifying measures to enhanced realization of the right to education; making recommendations toward the realization of the MDGs and EFA commitments; and, reviewing the interdependence and interrelatedness of the right to education with other human rights. See UN Comm’n on Human Rights, Human Rights Resolution 1998/33, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/1998/33, 17 April 1998.

In his or her capacity to accept individual complaints, the Special Rapporteur may receive urgent appeals and allegation letters. Urgent appeals procedures are used when immediate attention is needed to limit the scope of a violation that is allegedly ongoing or about to happen; allegation letters report alleged violations that do not require urgent action. Upon receiving a complaint, the Special Rapporteur may contact the State government to request further information or to recommend that steps be taken to address the situation. See OHCHR, Submission of Information and Individual Complaints.

The United Nations Human Rights Council is an intergovernmental body that monitors the human rights conditions of all UN Member States. One mechanism it uses is the Universal Periodic Review, where each State is required to submit a report detailing its compliance with its human rights obligations. Civil society actors and other stakeholders may also submit reports on the State’s compliance. The Council ultimately issues recommendations to each State, and States are responsible for implementing the recommendations and reporting their efforts to the Council. See OHCHR, Universal Periodic Review.

The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has a confidential individual complaint procedure allowing individuals, groups of individuals, and non-governmental organizations to submit complaints against UNESCO Member States that have allegedly violated the right to education. This procedure is designed to facilitate constructive dialogue between the alleged victims and the State, so that they may work together toward a solution. See UNESCO, Individual Complaint Procedure, 104 EX/Decision 3.3, 12 July 1978; UNESCO, 2nd Aspect of the Terms of Reference of CR.

Regional human rights bodies, including the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, European Committee on Social Rights, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, monitor their Member States’ implementation of regional human rights treaties that protect the right to education. These bodies, along with the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, also receive individual complaints concerning human rights violations.

Regional bodies also have special mechanisms that may address issues related to the right to education. For example, the Inter-American Commission has established a Unit on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in addition to rapporteurships on the Rights of Women and the Rights of Children, among others. The African Commission created the Working Group on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Special Rapporteur on Rights of Women. Additionally, the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child receives and evaluates State reports on the implementation of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.

Related Political Commitments

States and intergovernmental organizations have also pledged to advance children’s access to quality education through programs that are not directly tied to international human rights standards or other legal obligations. The UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are political commitments UN Member States and leading development institutions have made toward improving social and economic equality worldwide by 2015. One MDG is to ensure that “by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling.” See UN, Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education. The UN has developed a series of indicators to measure State progress toward MDGs.

UNESCO created the Education for All (EFA) project, which pledges to “universalize primary education and massively reduce illiteracy.” See UNESCO, Education for All. States have agreed to meet the following six goals before 2015: expand and improve comprehensive early childhood care and education; ensure that all children, especially girls, those in difficult circumstances, and those belonging to ethnic minorities have access to free compulsory primary education; ensure learning needs are met; achieve a 50 percent improvement in adult literacy; eliminate gender disparities in education; and improve all aspects of the quality of education. See UNESCO, Education for All Goals. The UN monitors States’ EFA progress, but States are not legally obligated to meet these goals.

SELECTED CASE LAW

Discrimination

  • The European Court of Human Rights found that the State had violated the right to education by disproportionately placing when Roma children in special needs schools because the system facilitating student placement raised a presumption of indirect ethnic discrimination and the State did not demonstrate that the placements were motivated by objective reasons unrelated to the children’s ethnicity. ECtHR, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, [GC], no. 57325/00, ECHR 2007-IV, Judgment of 13 November 2007, paras. 195–210.
  • The European Court found a violation of the right to education when the State placed Roma children in separate classrooms and failed to put adequate safeguards in place to ensure they were not discriminated against. ECtHR, Oršuš and Others v. Croatia, [GC], no. 15766/03, ECHR 2010, Judgment of 16 March 2010, paras. 180–85. The State argued that it separated Roma children due to their weak Croatian language skills. The Court noted, inter alia, that the State did not meet its duty to immediately transfer Roma students to mixed classrooms once they became proficient in Croatian, as many students received most of their primary education in Roma-only classrooms. See id. at paras. 172–75.
  • The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights did not find a violation of the right to education when complainants failed to substantiate their allegations that the State discriminated against Southern Cameroonians in admission to State universities. ACommHPR, Gunme v. Cameroon, Communication No. 266/2003, 27 May 2009, paras. 10, 145, 149. The State responded that its admission policies were based on merit and that the universities had trained a number of Southern Cameroonians. See id. at para. 147.
  • The European Committee of Social Rights held that the State violated Article 11(2) of the European Social Charter, which requires States to provide “educational facilities for the promotion of health,” finding that the teaching materials used to provide health education contained discriminatory statements against non-heterosexuals. ECSR, INTERIGHTS v. Croatia, Complaint No. 45/2007, Merits, 30 March 2009, paras. 48, 66. The Committee reasoned that States are prohibited from discriminating in accessing education and discriminating as to how education is delivered and the content of the teaching material. In evaluating the discriminatory statements contained in the teaching material, the Committee added that education should “not be used as a tool for reinforcing demeaning stereotypes and perpetuating forms of prejudice which contribute to the social exclusion of historically marginalized groups and others that face embedded discrimination.” Id.

Equal Access to Education

  • Under the First Protocol of the European Convention, States must guarantee to anyone within their jurisdiction the right of access to education, and may not enact residency and citizenship restrictions that prevent such access. The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of the right to education when a seven- and nine-year-old were refused admission to school because their father was not registered as a resident. ECtHR, Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, ECHR 2005-XII, Judgment of 13 December 2005, paras. 63–67.
  • When children were prevented from attending school because they lacked birth certificates, the Inter-American Court declared that the State should comply with its “obligation to guarantee access to free primary education for all children, irrespective of their origin and parentage, which arises from the special protection that must be provided to children.” I/A Court H.R., Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 244. The Court found that the State law requiring the simultaneous presentment of a valid birth certificate and other nationality documentation to attend school violated the American Convention. Id. at para. 186. This decision was further bolstered by the fact that many migrant parents did not have the means to obtain birth certificates for their children. The Court added that “the State must pay special attention to the needs and the rights of the alleged victims owing to their condition as girl children, who belong to a vulnerable group.” Id. at para. 134.
  • The European Court of Human Rights found no violation of the right to education when a student was temporarily suspended during a criminal investigation and then unable to re-enroll, noting that the right to education did not necessarily entail the right of access to a specific school so long as the State provides an alternative school. ECtHR, Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40385/06, Judgment of 11 January 2011.
  • The European Committee of Social Rights has ruled that States have an affirmative obligation to take practical steps to ensure that children with disabilities receive an effective education, and these steps must be taken “within a reasonable time, with measurable progress, and to an extent consistent with the maximum use of available resources.” ESCR, International Association Autism-Europe v. France, Complaint No. 13/2002, Merits, 11 April 2003, § 53. The Committee concluded that the State violated the Revised European Social Charter because it failed to secure the right to effective education for individuals with autism, noting that the proportion of autistic children receiving education was much lower than other students, and that there was a “chronic shortage” of support facilities for autistic adults. Id. at paras. 47–54.
  • The European Committee of Social Rights found that the State violated the right to education when it failed to provide intellectually disabled children living in mental health facilities with access to education. ECSR, Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) v. Bulgaria, Complaint No. 41/2007, Merits, 3 June 2008. The Committee noted that only 6.2% of the children residing in the facilities received education. When it compared this statistic to children residing outside the facilities, where approximately 94% were attending school, it determined that this disparity demonstrated discrimination against the institutionalized children. Id. at para. 53.
  • In hearing a case involving the incarceration of juveniles at a detention center, the Inter-American Court held that the State violated the right to education because it failed to provide the “children interned at the Center with the education they needed and that the State was required to provide as part of its obligation to protect the right to life.” I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 174. The State’s “failure to provide an adequate education limit[ed the children’s] chances of actually rejoining society and carrying forward their life plans.” Id.

Free Compulsory Primary Education

  • The Inter-American Court has interpreted the American Convention on Human Rights to require “free primary education to all children in an appropriate environment and in the conditions necessary to ensure their full intellectual development,” when read in conjunction with the Protocol of San Salvador and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 8 September 2005. Series C No. 130,para. 185.
  • The African Commission did not find a violation of the right to education when complainants failed to substantiate their allegations that the State underfunded and understaffed primary education in Southern Cameroon, failed to build new schools, and was closing all teacher training colleges. ACommHPR, Gunme v. Cameroon, Communication No. 266/2003, 45th Ordinary Session, 27 May 2009, paras. 10, 145. The State responded with data illustrating its efforts to provide Southern Cameroon with educational resources; the complainants failed to successfully challenge the data’s reliability. See id. at para. 146.

Secondary and Higher Education

  • The African Commission held that the State violated the right to education when it failed to provide basic services that resulted in universities and secondary schools closing for two years. ACommHPR, Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v. Zaire, Communication Nos. 25/89-47/90-56/91-100/93, 18th Ordinary Session, 4 April 1996, paras. 4, 48. The complainants alleged that the State’s failure was due, in part, to the mismanagement of public funds. See id. at para. 4.
  • The Inter-American Court has granted scholarships to attend secondary and higher education as a form of reparation to victims of human rights violations. See, e.g., I/A Court H.R., Escue Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 4 July 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 170. The Court heard a case where a man was illegally executed by a member of the Colombian National Army, and it determined that the State had violated the man’s human rights and his relatives’ human rights. See id. at paras. 78–80. The Court discussed how the man’s death had caused his daughter to lose many opportunities, and noted how her suffering impacted her education. The Court ordered the State to grant her a scholarship for university studies as “reparation for the life project” she could have had. See id. at paras. 169–170.

Instruction in Minority Languages

  • The European Court found Russia had violated the right to education when it supported the MRT regime within Moldova, which created a law mandating that the Moldovan language be written with the Cyrillic alphabet. ECtHR, Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia, [GC], nos. 43370/04, 18454/06 and 8252/05, ECHR 2012, Judgment of 19 October 2012, paras. 43–44, 149–150. The MRT regime forcibly closed Moldovan language schools, and applicants who kept students enrolled in Moldovan schools were subjected to detention, harassment, and threats. See id. at paras. 43–44, 48–51, 126. The Court found that this law was aimed toward eliminating the Moldovan linguistic heritage, consequently violating the right of access to education and the right to be educated in the national language. See id. at paras. 143, 144, 147–152.
  • In a case where French-speaking parents wanted their children to be educated in French while attending school in multilingual Belgium, the European Court determined that States are not required to defer to parents’ language instruction preferences in primary and secondary education, where education was available in one of the national languages. ECtHR, Case “relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium” v. Belgium, ECtHR, Series A no. 6, Judgment of 23 July 1968, paras. 6–7. The Court noted that if the State’s objective is to ensure uniform language instruction, this alone does not amount to discrimination, even though “the right to education would be meaningless if it did not imply in favour of its beneficiaries, the right to be educated in the national language or in one of the national languages.” Id. at para. I.B.3.

Academic Freedom

  • The ECtHR stated that academic freedom includes professors’ freedom to “express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work and freedom to distribute knowledge and truth without restriction.” ECtHR, Sorguc v. Turkey, no. 17089/03, 23 June 2009, para. 35. At an academic conference, a university professor criticized his university’s appointment system and was later sued by an assistant professor for attacking his reputation. The domestic court ruled against the professor, agreeing that his remarks constituted an attack on his colleague’s reputation. The ECtHR held that the State violated Article 10 of the European Convention because the national court “attached greater importance to the reputation of an unnamed person than to the freedom of expression that should normally be enjoyed by an academic in a public debate” without explaining why the plaintiff’s reputation deserved more protection than the freedom of expression. Id. at para. 34. See also ECtHR, Sapan v. Turkey, no. 44102/04, Judgment of 8 June 2010 (French and Turkish only).
  • The African Commission held that Botswana violated Article 9 (the freedom of expression) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, when the President deported a university professor for writing an article criticizing Botswana’s presidential succession process. See ACommHPR, Good v. Republic of Botswana, Communication No. 313/05, 47th Ordinary Session, 26 May 2010, paras. 196–200. The complainants alleged that the deportation order without an opportunity to seek judicial review violated, inter alia, the professor’s academic freedom. Id. at para. 196. The Commission reasoned that the professor’s article contained “critical comments that are expected from an academician,” and added that even if the State found the article offensive, it “can and should be tolerated,” since “dissenting views must be allowed to flourish.” Id. at para. 199.

Parents and Legal Guardians’ Rights

  • The European Court of Human Rights found that parental rights were violated when the State told parents if they did not withdraw their students from Moldovan language schools using Latin script, in favor of language instruction in Russian, Ukrainian, or “Moldavian” using Cyrillic script, they would be deprived of their parental rights. ECtHR, Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, [GC], nos. 43370/04, 18454/06 and 8252/05, ECHR 2012, Judgment of 19 October 2012, paras. 48, 128, 141. The Court found a violation of the right to education, reasoning that “it was impermissible to interrupt these children’s schooling and force them and their parents to make such difficult choices for the sole purpose of entrenching the separatist ideology.” Id. at para. 144.
  • The European Court of Human Rights held that the State violated parents’ right to educational freedom under the First Protocol to the European Convention when the State refused to grant their children an exemption from a compulsory class on Christianity. ECtHR, Folgerø and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 15472/02, ECHR 2007-III, Judgment of 29 June 2007, para. 53. The Court held that the State violated the parental right because only allowing partial-exemptions placed too high a burden on parents to expose personal beliefs and to remain informed of each lesson’s topic to determine if it contradicts their beliefs. Id. at paras. 85–102.
  • The European Court of Human Rights found that a compulsory course on religious culture and ethics violated the parental right to educational freedom because the course was not objective and pluralistic, as it predominantly emphasized Islam and lacked instruction on the applicants’ Alevi faith. ECtHR, Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, no. 1448/04, Judgment of 9 October 2007, paras. 70 –77. The Court held the policy for exempting students was inappropriate, because only students who affirmed that they were Jewish or Christian were eligible to be exempted. The Court noted that individuals should not be compelled to reveal their religious convictions. See id.

Health & Education

  • The European Committee of Social Rights found a violation of Article 11(2) in light of the non-discrimination clause of the European Social Charter, when it determined that health education classes in Croatia used a curriculum that stigmatized homosexuals and was based on negative gender stereotypes. ECSR, INTERIGHTS v. Croatia, Complaint No. 45/2007, Merits, 30 March 2009, paras. 25–27. The Committee held that States must ensure that sexual and reproductive health is part of the school curriculum, is quantitatively and qualitatively adequate, and that it is objective, without censoring or misrepresenting information. See id. at para. 47.
  • The European Court has rejected the argument that the State was obligated to respect parents’ decision to forbid their child from attending a mandatory sex education class. ECtHR, Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, nos. 5095/71, 5920/72, 5920/72, 5926/72, Judgment of 7 December 1976. The Court distinguished religious teachings from mandatory sex education, reasoning that the State’s interest in reproductive education is paramount to a healthier society, and does not encroach upon the applicant’s philosophical or religious sphere. Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the instruction is aimed toward providing correct, precise, objective, and scientific knowledge.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Useful online sources on the right to education include the following: