Discrimination in, to and through education

THE EQUAL RIGHTS OF A CHILD TO AN EDUCATION WITHIN A GLOBAL, KNOWLEDGED BASED, INFORMATION SOCIETY IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR SEX, COLOR, CREED, AND NATIONALITY OR SOCIAL/ FINANCIAL STANDING This paper argues the right of every child to have equal access to an education, irrespective of their colour, creed, nationality, ethnicity, or social and financial status, so they may obtain gainful employment and contribute to the growth of their society in the 21st century. Within any knowledge based global society, the basic tools of education must include educational and operational softwares. UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS Article 1. · All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and a conscience, and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. The Declaration of the Rights of the Child 1. Every child must be given the means requisite for its normal development, both materially and spiritually. 2. Every child that is hungry must be fed, the child that is sick must be nursed, the child that is backward must be helped, the delinquent child must be reclaimed, and the orphan and the waif must be sheltered and secured. 3. Every child must be the first to receive relief in times of distress. 4. Every child must be put in a position to eventually earn a livelihood, and must be protected against every form of exploitation. 5. Every child must be brought up with the idea that its talents are best employed when devoted to the service of its fellow men. Surely ‘The United Nations Human Rights’ and ‘The Declaration of the Rights of the Child’ leave no doubt that it is the right of every child to have equal access to education, irrespective of his or her, colour, creed, nationality, ethnicity, age or financial status. Knowledge now forms a major component of all human activity; economic, social and cultural, and has become a major creative force of all developed societies, hence creating new ‘Knowledge Based’ societies and economies. Knowledge is gained from access to education; hence an essential element for the development of all children, societies, countries, economies, and humanity. Knowledge based societies are not a new occurrence. Fishermen, for example, have long shared the knowledge of forecasting the weather to their community, and this knowledge gets added to the social capital of the community. What is new is that: · With current technologies, knowledge based societies need not be constrained by geographic location · Current technology offers many more possibilities for sharing, archiving and retrieving knowledge · Knowledge has become the most important capital in the present age, and hence the success of any society lies in harnessing it. All governments and individuals who truly believe in Human and Child Rights, and the equality of all, must surely also believe in providing equal access to all information and tools required for children’s education, irrespective of a child’s, colour, creed, nationality, religion, ethnicity, age, or financial status. Hence the tools and information required for a child’s education should not be withheld for the monetary gain of a few. Humanity can never allow a global society to develop that promotes the haves and have nots of a basic education. In this high tech, computerised, interconnected world of the 21st century, a world reliant on high speed access to information, no one country, state, or community, can hope to compete on equal footing with others unless their children have equal access to the programs and softwares that all others enjoy, as part of their education and vocational training. Essentially, all men and women have but their labour to give or trade in return for the basic necessities of life, of which education is one. A man or woman from a developing country cannot be seen as a lesser man or woman than one from a developed country simply because the price of their labour is less. Their labour affords them the basic necessities of life within their own communities, as their government can ensure the cost of the basic necessities of life are commensurate with the average weekly income of their country. The advent of a ‘Global Economy’ has, however, strained this basic principle of human existence for the poorer nations and people, denying them the fundamental tools of a modern education. Software piracy does not occur because the populations of poor or developing countries are somehow inherently criminal. It occurs because the young people of these developing countries need access to an education that their families cannot afford, as the exorbitant costs of ‘legal copies’ of essential educational software are extremely prohibitive. Access in this context is unfairly equated to piracy. PUTTING THE PROBLEM IN CONTEXT 2009 Average Salaries for Developed Nations Luxembourg 49,663 United States 49,483 Ireland 44,013 Switzerland 42,980 Netherlands 42,514 Australia 42,019 United Kingdom 40,825 Belgium 40,591 Norway 40,177 Denmark 39,143 Austria 38,682 France 35,430 Germany 35,292 Sweden 33,586 Japan 31,773 Finland 31,211 Italy 29,198 Spain 28,871 South Korea 27,587 Greece 26,929 Hungary 21,161 Czech Republic 18,922 Portugal 18,300 In 2009 the average weekly wage of an American was approximately $950.00/week, or 49,483.00/annum The cost of Microsoft Office is $499.00 (December 2009). This equates to an American parent who is earning $23.70/hour, paying the equivalent of 21 hours of their labour (approximately 3 days) to buy an essential educational tool for their child’s education. In Vietnam the average weekly wage is $25/week , or $1,300/annum The cost for Microsoft Office in Vietnam is also $499.00. A average parent in Vietnam earns $0.62/hour, hence they pay the equivalent of 804 hours (approx 100 days) of their labour to buy an essential educational tool for their child’s education. We stated earlier that all workers have but their labour to give or trade for the necessities of life. So with that in mind if we were to reverse the situation for American workers, by developing a proportionate cost for Microsoft Office based upon their hours of labour, we would find that they would need to pay $19,050 (equivalent to 804 hours of labour). If this was the retail price of Microsoft Office in America, we would surely expect to see a software piracy industry emerge in America similar to that of which we presently see in developing countries. Not because American children overnight had suddenly become criminals, but because the cost of the tools needed for an education had suddenly exceeded their parent’s ability to buy, and they had no other recourse for obtaining the software. Intellectual property laws are meant to protect an author and their developed intellectual works from being copied illegally. These laws should never be misinterpreted or misused as ways to insure wealth by exploiting or disregarding the basic human rights of all. Equal rights must not be idle worlds of the rich or the already-haves. The right of every child to shelter, food, safety, and education, are fundamental human rights, far outweighing economic or intellectual property rights (which would not be considered fundamental by any moral, thoughtful, human being.) INDEXING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Within a global economic society, the only way to achieve equal rights and access for all to an education and job, is to put in place a ‘Global Index System’ based upon the average salary of a country. A simple example of this would be to allot America the base index of ‘1’. Hence ‘1’ would equal the average annual wage of America. If in 2009 America’s average salary is $49,483.00 then this number will become the base (1) for all other index calculations. If Australia’s average salary is $42,019.00 then its index would be 0.84 (42,019.00 divided by 49,483.00 = 0.84) If Vietnam’s average salary is $1,300.00 then its index would be 0.0262. (1,300.00 divided by 49,483.00 = 0.0262) The intellectual property rights of any educational or vocational software would then be valued, within any country, by taking the price the software is retailing for in America, and multiplying it by that country’s index. (These indexes would be set by a reputable organization such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or United Nations (UN) and would be updated each year.) Hence for equality of access by the children of Vietnam to Microsoft Office, the price should be the price of Microsoft Office ($499.00) multiplied by Vietnam’s index of ( 0.0262) which means for equality of access the sale price for Microsoft Office in Vietnam should be $13.07. INTERUM ACTION Countries should not be forced to disadvantage their young citizens of the right to an education by enforcing unjust and unequal global intellectual property laws, when those laws do not take into account the financial differences between developing and developed countries. If developing countries enforce present interpretations of intellectual property laws, they are ensuring that their countries will forever remain developing nations, by dramatically impeding their young peoples from ever gaining the necessary education that will allow them to compete equally within the global economy; as computer literacy and skills in the 21st century are just as important as literacy itself. Until there is a decision reached regards this very important matter, companies and governments should restrain from prosecuting persons in developing countries for using educational and vocational pirated software. If companies do prosecute during this time of decision making, developing countries must rally together and fight the case in the highest courts of their lands, and in front of the Human Rights Tribunal. If developed governments, global organizations, or software companies believe that this moratorium on prosecutions for the use of pirated software is wrong, then they need to start implementation of an interim scheme which would see Microsoft Office retailing in the United States for $19,000. This would be another way of achieving equality for all the young of the world in the short term.

Dear Abu,
I could not reply earlier as my computer crashed! am back! Discrimination is power and our countries have had problems historically to keep our identities due to colonial subjugation that has led to a skewed sense of development even when we talk of education.. as we have had to fight our system from within and without all the time.education is the only way we can remove discrimination and we need to focus on child participation. I am part of a centre just opened in Goa on 11th Dec which is the day India ratified the UNCRC in 1992.We hoe to encourage children to make their own plans to understand the UNCRC and we are going to put in programmes in the computer for them to work on rrights and responsibilities. It will be asafe space where we will have resource persons eminent in their fields like art theatre and jornalism,media to interact with the children.. we will monitor and evaluate the programme and hope such centres can be replicated as now we have to create space where all of us child rights activists assist in making the UNCRC principles real as legislations in countries when it comes to women and children remain only in letter seldom in spirit and we have to remove discrmination through encouraging participation of all children irrespective of caste and creed to become worhwhile citizens of today and tomorrow.

I would like to add a couple of brief reflections to the excellent discussion below.

Thinking of this issue from the perspective of discrimination is only one side of the coin for ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities. For such groups, discrimination needs to be conceived of not just in equality terms but in terms also delineated by minority rights standards. A key to addressing discrimination, therefore, is improving understanding of the rights of minorities to learn about their own history, traditions, language and culture, as well as to learn about society as a whole (UN Declaration on Minorities article 4.4). This adds some clear positive obligations to the negative obligation to eliminate discrimination.

Monitoring mechanisms are key, as noted by other contributors. These need to be both quantitative and qualitative. Reduced disparities in the number of minorities present in educational institutions is a good quantitative measure but monitoring must also take account of what minorities (and majorities) are learning in school, whether they feel discrimination in the classroom, and how the curriculum impacts on their esteem for their own identity. These are all qualitative measures, requiring a different investment of resources and expertise. For minority groups, good practice requires that members of minority groups themselves participate in the data collection process.

This latter issue points to the importance of minority community engagement in reforming education systems. Policies that are prima facie aimed at increasing minority enrollment could actually be undermining cultural identities, for example, by removing children from their communities for boarding schools. Minority groups can identify these concerns if given the opportunity to do so. The exclusion of minority communities from contributing to the design of school curricula can lead to an alienation from the education system and a low willingness to support it.

It is worth stating that education delivered by minority groups themselves can also perpetuate discrimination, either against external communities or towards members of the group, for example, the girl child. In this regard, the provisions of the international human rights framework need to figure prominently in negotiations with minority education institutions. For example, provision of public funding to such schools should be made subject to reviews of the curricula to ensure that it is consistent with the relevant CRC provisions (e.g. A 29.1 c-d). Minority education institutions can be supported to understand these provisions better and to see them as an integral part of the canon of minority rights protection.

Finally, a word on the MDGs is needed. The attention of states to this framework provides a useful space to bring attention to discrimination. If states wish to achieve the MDG on universal primary education – and to make it sustainable – it will be necessary to take account of discrimination as a barrier for many children. The MDG platform can therefore be useful for initiating dialogue within states on this point. Some countries, for example, have adopted additional MDGs targets specifically to address minority exclusion in access to education. I would refer you to the report on the MDGs of the UN Independent Expert on minority issues for further information: UN Doc. A/HRC/4/9/Add.1 (2 March 2007).

Thank you very much for this opportunity and initiative.
My contribution is slightly at odds to your 2 questions, because it raises the instance of intentional governmentally-orchestrated discrimination in access to education. To remedy this, it is not only changes to legislation, administration, policy and content that is required but a change of the government's own mindset with regard to calculated exclusion from education and other rights.
The broader issue of denial of education in the Islamic Republic of Iran was addressed by Human Rights Watch in 2006, and such politically motivated exclusions have only been aggravated further since June 2006. One article discussing concerns in the tertiary sector in this time frame includes this The victims of these violations have therefore included a high number and a wide range of Iranians.
On top of all of these, however, the Iranian regime has exerted another level of denial of tertiary education to minorities as part of a broader policy to repress them - particularly to the Baha'i religious minority as part of a strategy to destroy them as a community.
The 31 year history of the utilisation of the denial of tertiary education as one of the tools in the arsenal of the Iranian government's suppression of Baha'is is covered in detail in this publication.
This is just to say that there are such instances where a major obstacle needs to be overcome before we can begin to move to the challenges captured by Angela's 'comprehensive and multifaceted strategies layered in three levels'.

Dear colleagues – how much have we learned!
Thank you very much for all your great comments and contributions: almost 50 from around the world speak to the continued importance of the topic and the need to share views and ideas. So much remains to be done in the fight against discrimination in, to and through education.
We will be inspired by all your thoughts when we will write a small publication on this topic early in 2010.
However, the discussion is not over and the Forum below will remain open. We therefore encourage new and old to keep visiting and to share expertise. Comments will still be placed in a queue and uploaded at regular intervals.
Thank you again and let us stay in touch.

Peter and colleagues: Thank you for initiating this important discussion. So many fine insights and ideas have been shared. I humbly offer the following:

Bigotry and discrimination are deeply rooted in the very fabric of social systems. We have all been socialized within systems that are plagued by classism, racism, sexism, and a host of other isms, and we have internalized many of these isms.

Audre Lorde summarizes Paulo Freire’s apt words from Pedagogy of the Oppressed: “the true focus of revolutionary change is never merely the oppressive situations which we seek to escape, but that piece of the oppressor which is planted deep within each of us, and which knows only the oppressors' tactics, the op¬pressors' relationships.”

Could this “piece of the oppressor which is planted deep within each of us” be one of the key obstacles to reducing discrimination in education?

So, in order to reduce discrimination in education and to do this in a thoughtful and sustained manner, we would need to overhaul the entire system—and transform ourselves even as we transform the system.

I have worked within academe as an educator and as an educational administrator. I now work with young people who have been marginalized because of race, class, or other issues and we have had several conversations about the urgent need for transforming the content and process of education. The nature and tone of the conversations in academe and among my youth are very different. I don’t doubt that the conversations in academe are spurred by sincere interest and guided by careful study. Still, missing from these conversations are the voices of those students who are misunderstood and mistreated. The insights and feelings shared by some of our local students and their parents/guardians are rooted in experience, observation, and a critical understanding of crucial issues that decision makers have often overlooked. Our youth point to how that “piece of the oppressor which is planted deep within each of us” needs to be uncovered and dealt with and they acknowledge that it will be very difficult for those in power to confront their own prejudices and give up/share some of that power.

• As a first step, can we engage in honest discussions about where and how we acquire our own prejudiced attitudes and behaviors and how these influence how we frame/reframe the very questions in consideration?
• How can high ranking educational officials take stock of their own prejudices and how these might influence their decisions about the actual content and process of education?
• Could we include a similar component as an integral part of teacher education for aspiring teachers and professional development for current educators, legal officers, legislators, and administrators?
• How can we provide support systems as students, teachers, legal officers, legislators, and others struggle through these difficult but necessary retrospective journeys?
• How can we bring students, especially those from marginalized groups, to these discussions and invite them to share insights and strategies for change. How can we ensure that these students share their ideas in the methods and modes that they are most comfortable with?
• Would it be possible to invite students to help with the creation of a set of courses that include socially responsible citizenry, conflict management, peaceful negotiation, unlearning bigotry, community service, and peer tutoring (and many more subject areas) as part of the core curriculum for students of all ages—starting in pre-school?
• How can we ensure that all students are engaged in a process of examining, critiquing, shaping, and owning their educational experiences?

These will be difficult dialogues and the action plans that ensue will compel us to extricate ourselves from old ways of thinking and doing but as another wise educator reminds us,

“Any real change implies the breakup of the world as one has always known it, the loss of all that gave one an identity, the end of safety”. James Baldwin

Respectfully,
Lorna Gonsalves

• Addressing discrimination requires changes in legislation, administration, resource allocation, but also attitudes, teaching methods and learning content. In your experience, what are the key obstacles to achieving these changes?
In my country, education is provided to all, although there would be children from uneducated families or poor families or broken families would not encourage their children to go to school. There is a legislation rendering basic education (till the age of 16) compulsory but it does not ensure the implementation of same (although there are sanctions against violations to this legislation). The educational system would tend to be an elitist one and some children would not be able to complete their secondary education because they would fail exams repeatedly.
Changing attitudes and mentalities are some of the key obstacles.. This applies to the persons bringing the changes in legislation, administration… but also to the children or adults who need to be “educated”… very often these children would come from broken families and would not have “role models” who are educated in their immediate surrounding. They would not be encouraged to pursue even basic education by their parents who do drugs, indulge in prostitution... This is like an unending vicious circle.
There is also no formal system of education or teaching facilities for illiterate adults.

• The international human rights framework is very strong on non-discrimination (Art 2 of the CRC and of other treaties). How can it be used better to translate principles into reality for the rights-holder?
Ensuring that dualist countries incorporate these rights in their internal legal system preferably, in their constitutions.
Providing recourse mechanisms enabling individuals or human rights’ NGOs to have recourse to this mechanism when they are discriminated against.

Thanks for this interesting discussion on the challenges of combating
discrimination in education.

One obstacle which CESR has identified in its work in different countries is the reductive understanding of discrimination among many education policy–makers.
One of the most valuable contributions of recent human rights thinking on discrimination is the expansive scope of the concept included in human rights interpretations (such as the recent General Comment of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on discrimination). However, this understanding of discrimination is rarely reflected in the practice. Even well-intentioned efforts to tackle discrimination are all too often limited to ensuring formal rather than substantive equality. They rarely address the societal roots of discrimination and frequently fall short of recognizing an obligation to redress historical patterns of inequality. As a result, education policy frequently neglects the positive measures needed to eliminate the conditions which prevent girls, indigenous people, rural dwellers or the poor from accessing and benefiting equally from the educational system.

Governments often present disparities in education as the natural or inevitable consequences of historical inequalities, rather than the result of their own policy choices. A simple but powerful tool for exposing discrimination in education policy is using statistical data to make disparities visible and trace them back to the policy failures that give rise to them.

Just to give an example, in a recent project assessing the rights to education, health and food in Guatemala, we used development data to visualize disparities of education outcomes in a compelling way. For example, the tree graph in Fig 12 of this factsheet shows intersecting disparities in youth literacy - literacy levels among non-indigenous urban men meet the Latin American average, whereas literacy levels among indigenous, rural women are the same as those in Burundi. [See: http://www.cesr.org/downloads/Guatemala%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf]. Tracking disaggregated indicators over time made visible the lack of progress in reducing gender disparities in primary completion, a hidden problem if one only looks at aggregate level progress.

We then looked at which populations where benefitting most from some of the key policy interventions aimed at making education more available, accessible, appropriate and of better quality. By contrasting indicators such as number of girls receiving grants or children benefitting from school food programs with data on school
desertion, we were able to show at a glance how the areas with the highest desertion rates (and highest percentage of poor and indigenous people) were those which least benefited from these programs. Analysis of basic budget data revealed that education spending as a whole was disproportionally benefitting the rich, and that specific programs such as scholarships intended for disadvantaged children were in fact
mostly going to the richest 20% of the population.

So this is just to back up the point Peter mentions in his earlier posting about using indicators. Analysed in the light of human rights principles, indicators and statistical data can certainly help build the case that disparities of outcome are the result of discrimination in policy.

Thank you for this valuable discussion.
Translating human rights principles into reality is not easy. In South Africa we have a highly regarded constitution yet inequality and discrimination prevail. As Ferozia (Mauritius) and Anjela (India) said, changing people’s mindsets is extremely difficult.
Using an ontological approach related to our being and our becoming seems to align well with transformative learning. What is right for some, may not be right for others. What is valued in one context may seem inadequate in another. Educating for diversity stretches us into critically reflecting on our own values and assumptions.

Perhaps we should start with what we mean by “schooling”. Does the term restrict us to the school/learning institution or are we referring to the holistic life long process of learning and development? To a great extent, “schooling” is/should be the product of our own expectations of the type of society that we want for our children now and for future generations. As someone said in an earlier posting, we get what we demand, and so perhaps it is our own role within civil society that demands critical reflection. From my own experience, parents, guardians and community members, globally, tend to take on the role of passive observers of State education systems. This is for a range of different socio-economic, cultural and political reasons, including apathy. The absence of articulated expectations of what type of ‘schooling’ we expect/want for our children allows the State to take on the unquestioned lead in moulding the recipients of ‘schooling’ into passive citizens who tend only to question and make demands when the impact of actions have a direct negative impact at the individual and family level. As part of my own personal research, the questions and answers that I am exploring in the context of Iceland are around what constitutes/creates engagement of civil society to critically reflect on critical national level issues and develops collective and active responses? Many argue that an individualistic response is just human nature but is it? Or is it a result of conditioning from a ‘schooling’ experience that has somehow become equated with achievement of economic wealth and productivity, which reproduce social inequalities rather than a rich and creative process for “promoting a culture of peace, respect and understanding”(Maria Ron Balsera 12/11/2009). One of my key questions then is how civil society can become engaged in influencing/developing education processes that can facilitate social transformation leading to a more equitable distribution of resources, both nationally and globally; and what key components/standards would this education process be comprised of/guided by? I have already started to gather data to inform my response from the wealth of experiences and knowledge from these posts, so thank you. I really do believe that this type of forum can become part of the solution in regards to it acting as an excellent example of constructive and collective dialogue that can be used to engage; to develop; and to influence our own actions – the capacity to generate change is within us all and this capacity will continue once this forum comes to an end.

I really enjoyed reading Anjela’s comment and I would like to point out that what she describes does not only happen in India, it is a common practice around the world. Anjela commented that “both the discriminator and the discriminated against” see discrimination as ‘normal’, the same has been argued by Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony, particularly in what he defined as ‘common sense’; exemplified by Birgitte’s dolls film.
Thus schools are not neutral institutions; they are structured in terms of class, race, and gender, reflecting the outside society. We find processes of alienation of students and of teachers, sorting or “cooling out” students of unfavoured classes or sections of a class, since what schooling values is the linguistic and cultural competence – of the dominant culture – that is transmitted within the family. However, these predisposition are never explicit, and remain disguised behind words such as ‘merit’ and ‘talent’.
But I also believe that social reproduction is not inevitable. The two conflicting trends in schooling – the hierarchical, unequal, capitalist vs. expansion in the economic opportunity for subordinated groups and democratic rights – are conditioned by the larger social conflict outside the school. However, schooling is not a passive body; it nourishes social movements, by being the arena where different ideologies fight. But schooling needs strong social movements to push in the same direction if it is to fight discrimination and inequality that seems to be advancing with the privatisation and commodification of education as commented by Salim and Tristan.
My question would then be: how can we change schooling so that it really fulfils its promise of upward mobility, allowing humanity to flourish, promoting a culture of peace, respect and understanding rather than reproducing social inequalities?

The comments so far show the variety of factors which make EFA so hard to achieve. For me, the key factor is the belief that it can be done. In my own country, Australia, there has been compulsory universal education for almost 150 years but we have suffered from the belief that not all children can truly profit from education. While our best students perform amongst the best anywhere we still have many students, up to 15% , who leave school without the preparation to take a useful part in their own society. For some groups in our society, of course, that proportion is higher. This means that there is a substantial group of our population who are disadvantaged for life. Our paticipation in the OECD testing program has dispelled the myth that some students are constitutionally unable to profir from schooling.

There are many factors that are helpful to the solution of this massive problem but I believe that the key is through the improvement of teaching and, in particular, the convincing of teachers that all students can learn - the issue is to find the way that works for each student. This will not be easy. First we need to change attitudes - only then will we search out the variety of ways of succeeding.

Dear Anita,

You are right like you talked about India having a cast system but if you to the broader content its not only India its also in Pakistan, not the cast system but also social discrimination like if you are studying in madrassa thay call them mulla and talib, so if they called with a different name how can be welcomed in the convential school system.Being a part of an NGO we have worked on the education in ID camps but also tried to eridicate the tension and trauma related to the situation faced by those people.

Hi everyone
Thanks for all your views. I will continue to reiterate here my usual stand.
The obstacles to the changes perceived and legislated are in translating the changes to reality; to pragmatism. Discrimination in the classrooms can be effectively opposed when teachers' capacities to be prudent, effective and competent in their facilitation of holistic, quality student learning for quality outcomes is addressed.These can result in effectively addressing the issues of gender and social imbalances, learning disparities and inequities to treating and promoting learning as a right for ALL irrespective of pupils' conditions and background. Schools and educational institutions that offer, enhance, promote and legislate quality learning in all aspects of learning and school activities (including parental and community involvement, sports etc), are those that reflect a win-win situation and do in the long term combat elitist and discriminatory attitudes. Quality education is inclusive, non-discriminatory and exposes and promotes enquiry, reflective, analytical minds and attitudes. Pertinent to these are effective school leaders, (principals and heads of institutions and schools) that are holistic, inclusive and non-discriminatory in their leadership roles and attitudes. Schools and educational insitutions ought to continue to be quality standard and goal setters for the students, communities and society they serve.

Hello again. Like many others, I too am fascinated by the variety of responses and would like to share my reading of what we have said so far with a view to suggest some strands for action. From this dialogue, it has become even clearer to me that the complexity of the issue is such that it requires comprehensive and multifaceted strategies layered in three levels (which also bring us back to the title of this forum):
 
1) Enforceable individual entitlements TO education
This means not only establishing legal frameworks in accordance with existing international standards, but also ‘appropriating’ them so that it becomes easier to translate them into concrete implementation and enforcement measures on the ground. Concrete suggestions reflected the need to:
• understand laws but also meanings of contexts and power (and power relations);
• identify duty-bearers and rights-holders more precisely (also by going beyond the State, looking at international organisations, businesses, donors and NGOs);
• include clear indications of consequences and penalties for violations;
• assess and monitor implementation (with indicators, baselines, qualitative and quantitative methodologies to expose flaws, etc.);
• look at and listen to the praxis of the victims;
• establish user-friendly, easily accessible, independent and effective mechanisms of appeal, remedies and reparations;
• mobilise and exert pressure through active and critical citizenry (including those who suffer discrimination directly) to ensure accountability;
• engage in legal action and raise awareness/popularise case-law;
• question and challenge investment of resources to ensure effectiveness and equity of implementation and enforcement.
 
2) Safeguards for human rights IN education
From a more operational point of view, the principle of non-discrimination should be ‘lived’ in education so that, by the very act of respecting everybody’s rights in education itself, we do not perpetuate or reproduce discriminatory (power) relations. Concrete recommendations related to:
• quality education, including looking at the conditions of and for education (from content to attitude, from environment to teaching methods);
• improving tolerance and understanding by recognising and respecting everyone’s dignity (precisely one of the aims of education) not only among students but among teachers as well;
• encouraging and supporting HRE from the class-room level to the training of legislators, judges and administrative authorities;
• support systems for students, teachers, parents, communities, school authorities to enable real empowerment and participation.
 
3) Shaping and using education towards the enjoyment of all human rights THROUGH education
Education is a powerful concept and tool (like Katarina used to say, it is a ‘multiplier of other rights’) and should be ‘used’ as such to counter discrimination too. In this case, I see our dialogue highlighting another series of suggestions:
• raise awareness or educate on discrimination to catalyse action, including through the involvement of the media and building bridges between different constituencies;
• think of education as a means of social transformation, including by promoting diversity throughout education;
• change what and how one teaches and learns;
• encourage communication, more direct participation and less tokenistic methods for listening to the voices from the ground.
 
This is quite a daunting list and I am sure I have missed a lot of other recommendations, but I hope it helps organise our thoughts and galvanise action for change. Difficult to achieve? Maybe. But the fact that it is difficult makes it all the more important that it be addressed effectively from so many perspectives, bringing forces and knowledge together.

Thank you all for the informative and thought-provoking discussions.
- About discrimination in education, UNESCO recently published Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education, available in 6 languages (English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian and Chinese), available here:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/Ulis/cgi-bin/ulis.pl?catno=177849&set=4A9F89E7...
- About data "disaggregated on the prohibited grounds of discrimination," the upcoming Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010, which is planned to be available on 19 January 2010, will present in-country educational data disaggregated on a number of grounds in some countries. Please check it out on 19 January 2010 at the UNESCO Education website http://www.unesco.org/education.

To take up one of the many interesting threads of this discussion, I'd like to add just a few comments about the aspects of marketisation and privatisation raised by Salim Vally.
 
The privatisation of higher education is rapidly advancing across the world, whether in terms of decreases in state funding for public institutions (and consequent charging of student fees and seeking research funds from business) or in terms of the emergence of purely private institutions. In Brazil, over 80% of students now enrol in private institutions, half of which are profit-making businesses with a questionable commitment to academic values, let alone those of social justice and human rights. Yet while higher education provides a particularly fertile ground, primary and secondary education too are not safe from the encroachment of profit-making activities. James Tooley, the prominent proponent of free markets in education, has argued strongly for the entry of new private providers in the poorest countries of the world so as to extend primary education to all. His argument is initially seductive given the obvious limitations of state systems in the countries he focuses on (Nigeria, India etc), and the purported ability of private schools to drive up standards through creating stronger incentives for teachers and greater ownership and involvement of parents. However, on closer examination, the ‘research’ supporting these claims is superficial to say the least. Even if it were to be shown that, all other things being equal, private providers in Lagos State are currently providing education of a higher quality than their counterparts in the state system, this cannot in itself constitute an argument for encouragement of the private sector generally speaking. While the private schools Tooley focuses on charge low fees and are therefore accessible to some poor families (though importantly not to all…), we need also to look at the consequences of the expansion of these schools. As the system becomes increasingly privatised, there will be an inevitable stratification of institutions, with some maintaining the low fees and others charging premium rates for higher quality, thereby restricting access to middle-class and elite students. A private system has discrimination on the basis of economic resources built into it, and is certainly not an empowering tool for the poor as some have argued. This is true even if vouchers are provided by the government, as top up fees can always be charged.
 
Furthermore, privatization has significant implications for the curriculum – and specifically for the promotion of understanding of and respect for human rights – that would need another post to explore in full. There are certainly some aspects of the arguments for privatisation that need to be taken on board. Soulless, distant state systems churning out identical, mediocre educational experiences for all is certainly not the goal of the right to education. Community-based schooling with locally relevant curricula and strong ownership and endorsement from all involved is clearly of value. Yet this space for diversity should not be conflated with a system of private funding that will crystallise initial socio-economic inequalities.

Hi everybody, marvellous idea to have this open discussion. I am from Mauritius where the educational system is elitist. Every year there are so many drops out and a high percentage of children come out of school illiterate. This system exclude all children with disabilities or slow learners. The curriculum remain rigid and inclusion of disabled children is done with great difficulty. I am in charge of The Early Intervention Service and School Inclusion in Mauritius. I work for a non governmental organisation which caters for children with mental disabilities. I have just attended the Salamanca Congress on Right of Education for disabled persons. 15 years after the Salamanca Declaration a Global Report on Inclusive Education was presented.
Mauritius is always ready to sign and ratify conventions. As far as implementation is concerned there is a lack of training with incompetent officers who are not ready for change in mind set.
So far that Convention will remain at a stage of signing and ratifying only countries will keep on being present to sign and zero implementation.
Today The CPE (Certificate of Primary Education) results have been proclaimed. Only children who get best results will be considered to have admission in best secondary schools. How can a system sanction children at 11 years old where in schools there is automatic promotion. If this is not discrimination so what is it?

Thanks to you all for this enriching discussion. I would like to comment on the potential role of human rights education (HRE) in promoting non-discrimination in schooling. I begin first with a disclaimer: the principles of HRE, although well defined by organizations such as the OHCHR, do not offer practical guides for practice. This can be seen as a strength insofar as HRE is intended to be adapted to the human rights concerns of highest priority in a community or learner setting. At the same time, this does not allow us to consider what might constitute quality HRE or to distinguish between HRE and human rights awareness raising. This question was raised by Peter Hyll-Larsen and Sue Gollifer. (For anyone interested in this topic, a draft list of HRE competencies has been developed for general consultation and can be found at http://www.hrea.org/HRE-Competencies_draft-December2009.pdf.)

This topic of HRE – what it is and what might constitute “quality” HRE – has bearing on our discussion here, I think, because it underscores the need to clarify how we see HRE promoting human rights progress. In my view, HRE has multiple roles to play in this regard. The first is in promoting awareness of international and national legal standards and enforcement mechanisms (Birgitte Olsen’s contribution details these well) among rights-holders but even among duty-bearers, as one cannot be assured that educational administrators, headmasters and also teachers have a working knowledge of these legal protection mechanisms. HRE in this context would be related to the professional development of educators and would address their own rights as well as those of learners.

HRE also has a crucial role to play, I think, in promoting a culture of human rights in the school setting. Here is where we see the intersection between HRE and the human rights based approach, with HRE supporting learning and action for all community members so that school policies, informal practices, curriculum and relationships reflect human rights values. This is an important area of development, and I refer those interested to a new portal on human rights schools that was recently launched: http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=27&language_id=1 . Presumably, schools that are committed to implementing HR or specifically the CRC will carry out an inclusive, self-reflective process that would incorporate identification of discriminatory processes.

I realize that this agenda carries with it a number of assumptions, which have been disputed already by the examples raised in this forum. One assumption is that there is political will in the educational system or at the school level to infuse a human rights based approach. This is simply not the case in many settings. This reality brings us back to strict accountability and a potential adversarial use of the human rights standards in relation to non-discrimination. What is the role of HRE, then, in this context? Do we burden individual students or teachers with the task of advocating for human rights vis-à-vis non-discrimination in schooling?

I suppose that many members of this forum would agree that a multi-faceted approach is needed. Just as human rights progress will not be brought about solely through the development of standards, but through the praxis and processes that influence daily interactions, the role of HRE in promoting non-discrimination is also multifarious. I have seen that HRE can be an ingredient to a system or school committed to quality education and a human rights-based approach. I have also observed that HRE carried out in individual classrooms by teachers can be an empowering experience for those directly involved and can lead to broader advocacy. Obviously, context will influence the direction and form of HRE.

In regards to broader change, it is evident that we need to look outside of the schools. We can indeed look for allies among human rights advocates, as David Archer has suggested. HRE for community members (including both rights holders and duty bearers) would also be necessary for promoting a shift in thinking in regards to endemic discrimination in schooling.

Looking forward to the remaining days on this forum. Happy Human Rights Day and best to all!

Fascinating wide-ranging responses and thanks to RTE for facilitating this vital exchange. Some input from South Africa based on our ‘post-apartheid’ experience over the past 16 years in response to the two key questions posed. Not an exceptional situation in South Africa as evinced from many interventions thus far and really adding on to the very useful contributions made by Angela Taneja, Muhammad Asad, Vicent Adzahlie-Mensah, David Archer, Lori Lake and Anita Mathew. I do want to also introduce relevant issues not directly introduced yet that speak to the legacy Katerina Tomasevski left us.

Clearly discrimination and therefore human rights considerations in education straddle the entire gamut of educational processes: policy, access, retention, language of instruction and assessment, curriculum, management, budgeting, resource provisioning and all aspects of learning and teaching. In addition some egregious examples particularly poignant at the moment are issues related to the now widespread phenomena of child-headed households (some research suggests that 32% of all children in South Africa would lose one parent by 2015); discrimination against migrants (documented and undocumented) and refugees and finally the simple though tragic fact that significant numbers of children come to school hungry. The latter qualifies as an obstacle to quality education.

A legalistic approach alone or even a purely bio-medical intervention for that matter (when it comes to HIV/AIDS) might well result in temporary relief but is often not implemented because of a tardy bureaucracy and issues of profligacy. Also long term sustainability is in doubt as those in power seek to roll back gains made.

Despite the promise of South Africa’s constitution (replete with lyrical bells and whistles), a plethora of policies that speak to human rights and social justice and the establishment of formal statutory organizations to promote and protect human rights, violations take place every day in our society and schools. Essentially, this is a result of unequal power relations, socio-economic interests and the way our society is structured and not merely because people are ignorant of the law. In fact we have the dangerous situation where failure by the state to deliver on its obligations, codified in law, has resulted in many incorrectly blaming what they consider a ‘human rights culture’ for their woes. This has allowed socially conservative religious, traditional and communally based politicians to opportunistically proffer invariably, patriarchal, ethnic/racial and xenophobic ‘solutions’. Many are seduced in an insecure economic and social environment where poverty, unemployment and inequality are at an all time high.

Astute legal experts, knowledge of international conventions, international agencies and specialized agencies help but absolutely essential is an active and critical citizenry who understand the law and its limitations and are willing to insist on and mobilize for their rights (through social movements, trade unions, student/parent organizations, resistance organizations etc) when these are not forthcoming and extend those that exist in order to give meaning to the numerous declarations, protocols, conventions and human rights/humanitarian laws.

Another vital issue not given sufficient attention in this forum is how the marketisation and privatization of education fuels discrimination. Katarina Tomasevski was implacably opposed to the dictates of the World Bank/IMF and the WTO when their prescriptions eroded or denied education in practice from being a human right. If we genuinely want to prevent discrimination in education we have to oppose the commodification of education as the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) seeks to do.

On a larger scale which includes discrimination in schools, we have seen particularly in the Middle East for people under occupation and subjected to invasions and wars and in Africa in recent times and for indigenous people throughout the world that human rights can be easily trampled upon, discarded conveniently or manipulated by the very powers that present themselves as champions of human rights. Lindsey Collen from Mauritius taking part in this forum can attest to this in relation to the shameful role major powers and their legal systems play in relation to Deigo Garcia for example. So following Upendra Baxi, Prof Issa Shivji from Tanzania and others, the single most critical source for the fight against discrimination and forf human rights is the praxis of the victims and not only human rights instruments or indicators however helpful they might be.

The Insititute for Ethics and Human Rights at the University of Fribourg (Switzerland) in collaboration with local NGOs and the Swiss Development Cooperation agency (SDC) developed a series of 52 indicators on the right to education in Burkina Faso. The preliminary results of the study - which took place over a period of two years in 2002-2004 have been published and are available from UNESCO (http://www.unesco.org/uil/en/publs/b_mtreducation.htm).

The basic premise behind the project is to use the framework of the 4 A scheme - accessibility, adaptability, availability and acceptability - and to develop indicators that measure the real degree of appropriation of the right to education by the populations concerned. In order to provide a true reflection of the situation on the ground and to capture the complexity of the right to education, a large number of indicators were established under each of the four 'As' with the caveat that it is also the interactions between the different elements that can also be decisive for the real implementation of the right.

Some examples of the 52 indicators that were developed by the pilot group (which consisted of members of local NGOs, government officials, academic researchers from Burkina Faso and from Switzerland as well as representatives from the Swiss Development Cooperation) include;

1. Acceptability - Is the right to basic education enshrined in the Constitution?
- What is the share of government-funded public expenditure on education in relation to GDP?
- What percentage of schools integrate national languages into the teaching programme?

2. Adaptability - Number of school aged children (7-12 years) per teacher
- Number of learners enrolled in evening classes
- Primary school completion rate by gender
- Number of radio stations including basic education in their programming

3. Availability - Percentage of malnourished children by age cohort
- Equipment available to schools and literacy centre - water, canteens, toilets
- Percentage of literacy centres with a child-minding facility

4. Accessibility - Female to male net drop-out rate
- Percentage of the school population located more than 2.5km from a school
- Share of annual average cost of schooling with respect to total household income

The preliminary findings of the study demonstrate that it there are groups of key indicators that appear to be of the greatest relevance for determining the real degree to which the right to education is being realised in practice. Both positive and negative dynamics emerged from the study and a nuanced picture of education in Burkina Faso was developed.

The positive dynamics that were measured by the indicators included; an improvement in the net rate of gender parity in school enrollment over the 3 years that were measured and a high rate of achievement in the non-formal sector. There was also a growth in public funding.

The negative dynamics observed came to light in the disaggregated data; there was a substantial degree of inequality depending on the family situation of the learner - in urban areas a girl under the guardianship of extended family members was far less likely to go to school than a girl living with her parents.

The indicators for measuring the right to education in Burkina Faso are designed for use by policy-makers, activists and researchers. It is hoped that the pilot group will continue to collect data in order to track changes in the situation in years to come and that the results of these observations will be made widely available in order to push for a more complete realisation of the right to education in Burkina Faso.

Dear Everyone:

My interest is sparked by a story. I attended an international conference recently held here in Barbados, Caribbean. One young woman came from Madagascar and she was originally from Japan. I am afraid that raised for me a concern. She was talking of an educational programme of which she was a part in Madagascar. She showed pictures of the programme, including her assistant. He was a native Madagascar person and quite older than she was. I regretted that she never thought to use the funds to bring her here to fund the assistant. Perhaps he could not have contributed as well as she could and maybe the returns for the project would have been less if he had come. But as an African descendant I wish that he had come.

Perhaps we need to consider how education globally is being made to reproduce relations that that are not useful for the new world we say we want.

Incidentally, this is not an either or choice although it is posed as such. The problem is that resources forces us into thinking along these lines. It forces me anyway.

Guidance,
Margaret (Kawamuinyo)

Hello All:
Im head of a small organization that is called The United belize Advocacy movement of Belize. Right now in Belize we have cases of dicrimination in education from two christian schools in the western part of our country. We note that discrimination can be documented for close to 10 years. It seems that one of the young men "did not want any trouble." Which meant it was code for my parents dont know. It seem he feared more his parents than finishing school so when the principal confronted him about rumors heard, he simply left and walked away from his last term in 4th year. For us this was sad. The next case has been made very public around a young man named Jose Garcia. Even though Belize is party to internation conventions and convenants and our constitution protects a person from discrimination and that its a right in the preamblein the belize constitution. this young man rights is violate. Our barrier is the prefered silence by the persons expereincing the discrimination; a church state educations system which seems to think that their moral bible superceded the constitution; also the non-existence of a human rights institution. The answer is litigation, structural education to the population to improve tolerance levels.
Still it s

I should like to follow up on a couple of comments below that deal with gathering evidence and refining and disaggregating indicators in order to expose and act on discrimination, in line with the opening quote, that discrimination must be fully exposed, but also with another of Tomasevski’s signature quotes: “being counted means that you count and that someone cares”.
 
Thalia spoke about the challenge posed by the “lack of reliable data and regular & consistent monitoring mechanisms. Lack of comprehensive planning and formulation of clear objectives and indicators. Unawareness of complexity and pitfalls” (see Tuesday – 09:28), and Angela wrote of the need to name and identify various manifestations of discrimination (acknowledging that no list is exhaustive), thereby giving us a tool to measure the State’s compliance with its obligation to non-discrimination and to respect, protect and fulfil everyone’s rights (see Monday – 12:25). It also follows Carl’s succinct intervention earlier today: “the needs of minority populations is proper assessment and baseline. Youth, especially minorities, articulate their desire for 'education' . In most cases, this has not been disaggregated to understand and quantify[...]” (see Wednesday, 18:28)
 
However, how do we identify those groups that society itself cannot identify? What do we do with children who have no birth certificate, cannot be counted and therefore do not count? Or those children with disability, where the family, out of shame and fear of stigma, hides the child away when the census comes? This is not the State per se who violates. But can the State and International Community legislate on this effectively?
 
This also speaks to Bruce’s extremely interesting reflections on the very nature of discrimination, what is it and who defines discrimination (see Monday – 17:55), indeed, who has the power to define and thus to deny, as Vincent points out (see Monday – 18:19).
 
Indicators are therefore crucial to expose and oppose discrimination. There are currently efforts, both by the OHCHR and by the RTE Project, to define new rights-based indicators, to assist the international monitoring bodies, but also emphasizing participation and accountability to both place pressure on governments and help them improve their laws and policies in a participatory way.
 
In your opinion, what would be sensible and effective indicators for exposing discrimination, at national and at class-room level?

• Addressing discrimination requires changes in legislation, administration, resource allocation, but also attitudes, teaching methods and learning content. In your experience, what are the key obstacles to achieving these changes?

Discrimination in the educational system is a reflection of the existing social inequality. These, in turn, are a result of a historical, social and political process that needs to be understood and counteracted if a piece of legislation or policy that seeks to curtail discrimination has to succeed. The implementers of the policies ultimately come from the same society that holds the discriminative views. Speaking of the context of my country, India, the society is inequitable and stratified and the education system ensures “reproduction of social inequality” (to quote Bourdieu) being an ideological state apparatus (to quote Althusser). This is even more likely when the education system lacks an ideological vision that backs education programming with a vision that sees education as a means of social transformation. As a result, the practices of discrimination that are manifest in the schools form a smooth extension of the discriminatory practices in society. These are also (by and large) not challenged in the due course of events since they are seen as ‘normal’ by most people (both the discriminator and the discriminated against) despite what the law may say.

Consequently, any work on discrimination MUST also involve and go parallel with efforts to change community norms and perceptions (on both sides of the fence). The transformative scope of education needs to be emphasized as part of overall development work. This large ideological stand needs to be accompanied by specific actions at the grassroots level to change the attitudes of people. This is essential for prevention of discrimination and for ensuring that existing redressal mechanisms (that often DO exist) work. This would entail consistent and long term work with parents, with communities, with local governance bodies and school management committees over and above actions to ensure mass mobilization and awareness on the issues. To me, discrimination eventually exists because everyone permits it to. Therefore, ending it involves changing peoples’ mindsets to convince them that every child (of every class, race, caste, gender, religion etc) is entitled to receive a quality education in a fear free environment. Achieving this isn’t as much a matter of identification of specific forms of discrimination experienced by specific groups and outlawing them, but developing a set of common principles and ensuring that they are universally understood and accepted. Unless this commonality of norm is established, there is a risk of these glossaries of discriminative behaviours not being taken in the spirit in which they were intended.

It is also important to note that many efforts to ensure non-discrimination at the grassroots level tend to target the teacher who is at the lowest rung of a large, amorphous and often inflexible education system. It is easy to see discrimination at the end point and ignore the systemic reasons which lead to the practice. Targeting the teacher would be counter-productive in such circumstances. Creating a relationship between the school and community that is supportive and the teacher motivated to teach and undertake the other tasks necessary for the functioning of the school is essential. This, furthermore, involves the State providing the necessary provisions to ensure that ALL children have access to infrastructure and facilities that are adequate for learning. When resources are limited and infrastructure poor, children from marginalized groups (with parents who are illiterate and in many cases leading an existence that is on the brink) are less likely to receive these resources which instead go to those children whose parents can negotiate for them. Education research shows that there are differences in social capital between the rich and poor. This results in the child of the single mother or a child that is Roma, black or immigrant being left out due to the family’s inability to negotiate the middle class institution that is the school. The entire corpus of research on effect of social economic status on the experience of schooling (and performance in school) speaks of the differential experiences of children. Consequently, additional support may be needed for such families to empower them to negotiate with the school and enable their children to reach a level playing field so as to overcome these social, political, economic and cultural barriers while also ensuring sensitivity of the service providers through an ongoing process of dialogue. It goes without saying that the sensitization of teachers needs to happen as part of their own training. However, with a huge section of the teaching force in India being un-/semi-trained, this would take me onto another tangent altogether.

Having written what I have, I would also point out that such a process is hard to achieve without adequate democratic space and without a legal machinery that is active. National and international legal frameworks and the resources and policies they bring support (or hinder) the above process. However, it may also be essential to remember that a nation’s laws (and the international too!) are ultimately a result of a particular period in history. Thus, with regard to the response of a previous poster on the forum, the failure of India’s new right to education Act to prohibit the existence of multiple strands of education is ultimately a reflection of the failure of society to come together fully around the idea of a common school system (irrespective of how much we educationists may feel it is imperative for social equity in the long run) which was reflected in the fact that the legislative body elected it unopposed. Lack of political will is ultimately a reflective of a lack of social will. What I am saying is, in effect- we get the laws and the implementation of these laws that we deserve.

• The international human rights framework is very strong on discrimination (Art 2 of the CRC and other treatise). How can it be used better to translate principles into reality for the rights-holder?
The link between international legal framework and national legislation and the implementation of the said legislation has often been rather weak. One reason is that there are no real consequences for the failure to adhere to many of them (like the CRC) which translates into Countries signing them as a pious wish on their part, knowing that they need not urgently move towards implementation. A process of mobilization on the legislation is needed. The rest is an obvious set of practices like evidence collection, participation in processes like Shadow Reporting on international treaties, dissemination of the provisions- both in CSOs and beyond it with the media. Needless to say, legal action in cases of violation needs to be undertaken. The fact that something is in violation of international provisions and may even have come up in discussion all the way in the UN may lead to a discriminative practice being removed faster. A process whereby the International UN convention that is “out there” is grounded in the life worlds of the children, school and community is needed, supplemented by participation in existing international spaces so that the voices from the ground may be heard.

Hello everyone. I am researcher with an interest in human right to education. I am also hard of hearing teacher so the question of human right to education is something I have become an expert by learning from my own case.

In my eperience, when i underwent training - educating for human right at my university, I was suprised to learn that even in modern so called democratic world we people are not aware that the human right is something that no one take it away from us. we own it from the day we were born. they were not given to us by the governments. Sad but true.

What i am concerned with is while we do have extensive existing legislation, what we do not have is the methodologies to expose the flaws in the system. Even Tomasevski pointed out during her research at the lack of methodologies expecially qualitative. So what is lacking is the set of robust qualitative methodologies that could be applied to expose the flaws in the system. During my doctoral studies this problem motivated me to work on the novel research approach to qualitative data collection though storyteling. As we all know stories can be very powerful tool yet there is a lack of transparent method to record these stories. As some fo you pointed out, when we expose discrimination or abuse of the human right, we do need to ensure that we do it in transparent way. In this way it can be used to create this much needed link that will bring the individual case to the attention of the legal system. Good wishes to al of you..

One of the challenge of addressing the needs of minority populations is proper assessment and baseline. Youth, especially minorities, articulate their desire for 'education' . In most cases, this has not been disaggregated to understand and quanitfy whether this is re-entry into primary school, secondary school or formal/non-formal vocational education. The latter is complicated as experts in youth development state the biggest hinderance to youth's completion of vocational activities is lack of literacy and numeracy skills. A propler need analysis including literacy survey is essential to actually meeting the needs of minority youth.

The language needs of minorities, especially adults, is over looked, A signficant obstacle to minorities access to education and participation in society is language. Training in a second language can be challenging and a strenghth of emergency education organizations.

I will focus on the role of legislation and the State’s obligations, in order to reply to the comments made by Peter (Tue, 12/08/2009 - 14:50), Chikondi (Tue, 12/08/2009 - 14:43) and Thalia (Tue, 12/08/2009 - 11:48).
Once States ratify treaties such as the CRC and ICESCR, they have a duty to fully implement their international human rights obligations and to make the necessary changes in their legislations to respect, protect and fulfil those rights. The principle of non-discrimination is not subject to progressive realisation. Rather, States have an immediate obligation to not only revise their national laws to make sure they comply with this principle, but also to ensure the enforceability of this right by specifying its content (duty bearer, right holder, etc), establishing mechanisms of appeal, and providing remedies or reparations in the cases where that law has been violated.
A recent ECOWAS’s decision recognized education as a legal entitlement of citizens, rather than "a mere directive policy of the government" (for other legal cases on discrimination see the RTE case law database).Discrimination may affect the availability, accessibility, acceptability and adaptability of education. The debate tends to focus on accessibility, but the implementation of legislation on each of the 4As is necessary for the right to education to be fulfilled.
Enforceability may also be political and social, not just legal. When governments promise certain policies, citizens can exert pressure and demand that they fulfill their promises. So, as David said (Tue, 12/08/2009 - 11:48) it is extremely important that citizens know their rights and legislation so they can hold the governments accountable. Citizens through CSOs should demand greater protection and legislation for the full implementation of their constitutions and of those international agreements they have signed and ratified.
So, do you think the legislation in your country concerning discrimination in education reflects the constitution and the treaties they have ratified? (You might want to have a look at the RTE country database).

One year ago, the inaugural session of the UN Forum on Minority Issues addressed Minorities and the right to education.
Since many of the issues raised address discrimination and education, I thought the participants in this discussion would appreciate the link
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/minority/inaugural_sessio...

Mauritius is a country where the mother tongues of 92% of people are discriminated against in schools. In October 2009, an adult literacy organization I'm in held an International Hearing into the Harm Done by the Suppression of the Mother Tongues in Schools. 50 witnesses came forward to give evidence before a panel consisting of seven people with vast experience on the issues concerned. The Findings were that there is severe damage of many different kinds by the suppression in schools of the mother tongues. The damage is emotional as well as cognitive. It was also pointed out that in order for a child to be taught through a language which is not his or her own, s/he needs to have already been taught the foreign language for 6-8 years, and then taught only in subjects that are not intellectually nor linguistically demanding for another 3-4. This means that in Mauritius not only the 40% who fail the primary school leaving examination are suffering, but all children are. Anyone interested in the findings can read them on the following web site: www.lalitmauritius.org
The members of the Panel, for anyone interested, were Prof. Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, Prof Beban Sammy Chumbow, Barrister Jean-Claude Bibi, Prof. Vinesh Hookoomsing, Vidya Golam, Medha Moti, and Prof. Robert Phillipson.

Hi,
My name is Carolyn Reynolds and I am the Executive Director of Women's Issues Network of Belize (WIN-Belize) which is a network of agencies working on the issues of trafficking in persons, teenage pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, youth and women's empowerment through skills training, and advocacy on policies and laws affecting the lives of women. A few years ago, our organization developed an advocacy campaign on the issue of discriminatory practices in our Education system here in Belize. This was a challenge for the schools are church/state and most of the primary schools are managed by the Catholic Church. We held a dialogue with the religious leaders on the issue of firing teachers who became pregnant out of wedlock. In this dialogue, the Catholic Bishop said that the Catholic Doctrine took precedence over our Constitution. The issue of morality and setting an example for children were their reasons for firing teachers. At the same we were agitating for changes in school policies, a teacher from one of our districts had just been fired and asked us to assist her in challenging the system. The National Women's Commission took charge of this case and the court rules that the teacher be paid US$50,000.00. This was appealed by the Catholic Church and she was then awarded US$25,000.00. Belize has a National Gender Policy which states that in the event that a teacher is penalised by a school authority due to pregnancy decides to pursue judicial review, GOB shall offer to meet 50% of her costs in that legal process, in order to try to establish a precedent applicable across the education sector. Therefore, this document along with other documents and international treaties were used to justify this case. Another form of discrimination is the issue of pregnant teens being expelled from some schools. However, there also needs to develop a supportive system for these youth in order for them to return to the classroom. Wage inequality is also a discriminatory issue for there were three levels of wage scales for manual labors and women were at the bottom of the scale. After much lobbyingby civil society, the minimum wage for all manual workers be $3.00 an hour by the end of 2010. The cost of education in our high schools is also a very big issue and programs cannot come on stream because of lack of finances.
Please feel free to contact me if there any further questions or information you might need.

The obstacles that I found in my experiences is;
- to addressing discrimination to legislation is not all of the legislator have enough understanding about human rights,
- as well as Indonesia has law no. 25/1999 about Provincial Autonomy Law. This is caused of many discrimination from civil government attitude to civil society.

In my experienced the better use to translate article 2 of CRC in reality for rights-holder is all of children is the next generation, discriminating them mean cut our future.

Hello. I re-iterate all others and thank the Right to Education Project for holding this forum. As a citizen of Japan, I wanted to share with you some observations I am making about the debate currently taking place in Japan about making upper secondary schools (“high schools”) available free. In my humble opinion, this issue concerns discrimination against the poor regarding their right to education, and also the points raised on legislation.
In Japan, for 60-odd years, public schooling has been available free for 9 years by law, but that never progressed further. In other words, the state obligation of “progressive realization” did not take place. With the recent change in the party in power, which promised during the election campaign to make three more years of public education available free, this question has been put on the table. However, with the tight public budget under the global economic crisis, there has been much debate.
Thanks to the question placed on the public debate, there has been a lot of reporting on the mainstream media about how the poor have been discriminated against in accessing upper secondary education because of the cost involved (it costs 520,000yen, or approximately US$5900, a year on average for a student to attend a public high school). Many students choose to drop out not because they do not want to learn but because they are not able to pay. At the same time, there have also been many opinions expressed by the mainstream media that oppose making three more years available free, on the ground that, eg. it is not compulsory (but that is the other way around from the perspective of international human rights treaties: it is not supposed to be compulsory if it is not free), or it should be made free only for those from poor families (again from the perspective of international human rights treaties, this is not a question of one or the other: it should be made available free universally, and in addition, there should be positive measures such as scholarships to support the poor and others who are excluded and disadvantaged).
What surprises me most is that there is no opinion to legislate making public education available free for 12 years. Debates are all reduced to the question of budget, i.e. whether it will be possible to make three more years of public schooling available free in the next fiscal year, despite it is Japan, one of the richest countries in the world. This implies that when the party in power changes, or if the economy goes worse, the situation can go back to the same old. This implies that, even if three more years of schooling are made available free in the next fiscal year thanks to the political momentum, there is no guarantee of the right to secondary education of citizens of the country.
For me, the moral of the story is two-fold: (a) legislation is critical to guaranteeing the right to education, especially at a time of instability such as the one we are in at the moment; (b) it is important to raise the awareness of journalists and media workers about their own and their family’s right to education.
II wanted to share with you this story just to say that the fulfillment of the Right to Education for All is no simple mater even in a country that is considered “advanced.” Discrimination goes far, wide and deep, and we have a lot to do.
Thank you again for this opportunity.

Thanks for providing the opportunity to respond to these important issues. I am currently formulating my own ideas and theories around HRE with the intention to carry out a research study on the topic and these discussions are contributing enormously to my thought process. So, thank you. The process has raised similar questions and thoughts on the role of rights holders and duty bearers and ultimately the responsibility that is placed on the classroom. However, my main concern is the role of duty bearers in the form of donor governments/countries. Guided by international standards/indicators represented by the MDGs; EFA goals; INEE etc., donor countries and institutions are in a position of power to advocate for HRE which has the strong potential to address the needs of rights holders. However, in my experience of over 15 years in development and education work, it is so often the case that this position of power is used to perpetuate duty bearers’ violation of human rights through the lack of accountability placed on recipient countries to respond to, adopt and monitor an HRE approach. Moreover, I often ask myself to what extent a human rights-based approach to education is applied and monitored in industrialised/donor countries. Irrespective of a country’s wealth, children from poor backgrounds and marginalised sectors of society are discriminated against, albeit indirectly and perhaps unconsciously, in many contexts. This still amounts to discrimination, be it a result of conscious action or ignorance and lack of awareness. In other words, are donor countries practising what they preach within their own education systems and is there a need to develop a universal standard to guide the development of human rights education based on the universal declaration of human rights and CRC – a standard distinct from existing standards that already exist (MDGs; EFA goals; INEE indicators etc.)? Perhaps there is already one? Could then such a tool lead to donor countries and recipient countries becoming more accountable to ensure that development aid in education responds to right holders’ needs rather than perpetuates the violation of human rights by duty bearers, either intentionally or unintentionally. Thanks again for such an informative forum.

In my country, assimilation policies are a barrier to access to education by many childiren from unrecognised languages and communities. While Setswana is the national langauge, over 60% of the citizens are non-Setswana speakers and they acquire it at school. This implies that the first three years of schooling are essentially for developing comprehension skills in the language. Most teachers in rural schools are not from the local communities and therefore, do not share neither the language and culture of the children they teach. The teacher's attitude in some cases have served to exclude children from school either physically or psychologically. Most rural school are under resourced. have the highest number of unqualified teachers, high drop out rates, and low performance rates. In some small communities, there are no schools and children either do not go to school or live alone in the nearest village to attend school. There is an urgent need for inclusive and non-discriminatory policies, that will address teacher education, resource allocation and intercultural education. The CRC is an excellent tool to use as a foundation for developing incluisve policies, curriculum and resource allocation models. The right of the child to access education, of the right quality, that recognizes him or her as unique human being with a great potential awaiting to be nurtured would be in line with the CRC. Discrimination, including structural, should be investigated and addressed in order to create a conducive learning environment for all children.

Thank you for some inspiring and very detailed comments, on many different strands of the topic. Perhaps at this stage I might just come with an observation and a slightly provocative question to one of the red treads that I see: there seem to be a strong emphasis on human rights education (HRE), awareness raising and changing people’s prejudices etc, esp at class-room level. This is undoubtedly the way forward, but are we too ambitious on this point, do we inadvertently place too much responsibility on the shoulders of teacher (even when they are trained in HRE)? Does this also reflect a certain discomfort with more legal and judicial mechanisms? Or at least a certain hesitancy with regard to enforceability/utility of the legal argument, and, as we have seen below, the challenges to define discrimination? HRE may certainly appear softer, but is it also easier? Should we look also for more binding norms on HRE?
A holistic national (and international) strategy must of course include all avenues (HRE, legal, enforceability, UN, regional, ombudspersons, Reflect, emergencies etc etc), but I am nevertheless curious about the strong emphasis on the class-room level and role of teachers, and the possible risk of taking focus away from States as prime duty-bearers. Any thoughts on this? Or on other of the issues raised so far? Thank you again and please keep following the debate.

legislation
I think legislation is a good idea and is one way forward. But enforcemnet of this legislation is what is lacking in many developing countries. In many developing countries CRC has been ratified and even made into local law but parents and communiities continue to keep children from school without any consequences. Even where education has been made compulsory for a certain age group there is no enforcement to make this happen. One village headman( local leader) in Malawi imposed a goat fine for parents that did not send their children to school for no reason in his village, the result was fantastic children were attending school and attendnace was 98-100% in that village. But this could not be applied in all villages so that did not go further.
In a similar manner there are no specific consequences for national governments or international donors that make it impossible for children to attend school, so efforts to have legislation that can not be followed through are futile. legislation msut be able to protect and punish misconduct.

attitudes and teaching methods
These can also be deterrent for children attending schools. One of the major reasons cited by the Ministry of Education in Malawi for children droping out of school is lack of interest in school, teaching methods that do not motivate children to learning are in themselves a push factor for children to drop out. Children need to feel safe in the school environment and some attitudes towards children of ethnic minorities and children affected and infected with HIV and AIDS make them leave school and loothe learning rather than make them feel that they are welcome to be part of the school communities. Teachers and administrative staff need to sensitized to these issues especially even being senitive to the needs of children that need to take medication (in the case of those affected by HIV) during school time by giving them a space to do so.
I think one other issue that affects children's right to education is the school environment for example the lack of water and poor sanitation makes it difficult for girls to attend school during menstruation and unsafe water make boys and girls un healthy and therefore not able to attend classes and this is in violation of the same rights we would like them to have. Making the school environment safe is one way of ensuring that children enjoy their right to education.

I guess it is not easy to change especially attitudes, perceptions, etc. of adults. Integrating these issues in mainstream education are critical, but at the same time children copy what adults are doing (rather than what adults are saying). Part of the problem may also be that many teachers who should be role-models for children, never wanted to be teachers in the first place. That makes changing people's attitudes and behaviours also more difficult. Often people are not conscious of their hidden prejudices and stereotyping perceptions and it requires excellent "trainers" to help people to become aware of such and do something about it.
It is beautiful to have all the international agreements/declarations etc. that we have, but translating such into (for example) quality education that goes beyond passing standard exams of memorized cognitive learning is a completely different story. Contextualizing rights, discrimination etc. is also very important. There is some beautiful material in Tamil Nadu developed by an Indian Human Rights network only using examples and activities that are very close to children's lives. Here in Uganda, in one of the districts where I am working the district (education is in principle decentralized) has identified human rights education as an important area to integrate into education, but it will be important how and who and with what expected outcomes.
Giving children a voice in for example discussing issues around discrimination is good, but if nobody listens to those voices and takes them into account when policies and practices are discussed and decided, it is better not to giver children such an opportunity. Tokenism mostly leads to frustration and children not wanting to participate anymore.
Legal frameworks and policies are often quite good. Understanding the implications for education and non-discrimination is much more difficult. Inclusion in education is one of such issues difficult to understand for many. Inclusion is in fact the operationalisation of the right to non-discrimination, and although Uganda claims to do inclusive education, its EMIS has no possibility of making all school-age children visible in data collection, so how can the system/schools reach out to something they do not know.
Exposing marginalisation/discrimination/exclusion must imply that we look at these issues from the perspectives of different actors and stakeholders, and take their views and feelings serious.

Thank you for this discussion forum! As part of the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies, we too see the importance of building coalitions and communities of practice to tackle issues of discrimination particularly in emergency and post-crisis contexts. Often in these contexts vulnerabilities are even more pronounced and discrimination potentially has an even greater impact on the life chances of learners, given the life-saving and life-sustaining support that education in emergencies can provide.

In emergency contexts, where establishing learning environments and providing educational opportunities for the majority can itself be extremely difficult; inclusive approaches that are proactive in not discriminating can seem particularly challenging. Addressing these issues doesn't start with guilt or anxiety, but rather by asking ourselves – practitioners and policy makers – these questions:

• What are the barriers to participation and learning?
• Who experiences these barriers?
• What can we do first to minimize these barriers? and then…
• What can we do next?

Education in emergencies can also become a target for discrimination itself – often in the form of violent attacks. We are also considering how we can better work with legal experts to address this issue. From girls being attacked on their way home from school in Pakistan, to the disappearance and assassination of teachers and trade union workers in Colombia, to the occupation and destruction of educational buildings in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, these acts are abhorrent, violating fundamental rights and undermining the provision of education. Reducing the incidence of attacks on education and bringing perpetrators to justice is critical to the safety and development of individuals and communities affected by conflict and insecurity, and it will be important to consider how we can work together to halt these crimes and ensure legal accountability.

More information on all these issues are available on the INEE website and blog: www.ineesite.org/blog.

In many cases national constitutions and legislation (as well as the international human rights framework) are already strong when it comes to addressing discrimination - so legislation is often not the priority. The obstacles lie more in getting people to use the existing legislation to enforce their rights. One of the biggest obstacles probably lies in the fear that people have of the judicial system and legal language.

Almost by definition those who are most likely to be discriminated against in the field of education are those who have least access to (or voice in) education. Of course this group are also likely to have the least familiarity with (and least confidence in) the legal system. Indeed, in many contexts there is a direct connection between illiteracy and illegalisation. Children born to parents who are not literate are less likely to have their birth registered and are more likely to remain “invisible” in government statistics (and thus less likely to benefit from government programmes designed based on those statistics). There are often high rates of illiteracy in “illegal” urban settlements or slums, where securing basic rights to education becomes particularly challenging. Migrant workers who are often denied basic education, often lack the citizenship status that would give them confidence to challenge this.

Key to addressing discrimination is the building of awareness, of grassroots organisation, as well as of wider movements and coalitions. Unless there is an initial level of mobilisation and of organisation of the groups that suffer from discrimination it is hard to secure change. Adult literacy programmes inspired by the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, such as those using the Reflect approach, can play a key role in building that initial awareness and catalysing local action. This is a foundation from which broader organisations and movements can be built – as has happened for example in Nepal where national movements of dalits, landless people and bonded labourers have each emerged from systematic grassroots work with the Reflect approach.

There is still a journey though from building movements to building alliances or coalitions. In the past ten years national education coalitions have emerged in at least 65 countries around the world - coalitions that link NGOs, teacher unions, social movements and other actors who are concerned with education (see www.campaignforeducation.org). These have played a fundamental role in putting education higher up domestic political agendas, in demystifying and tracking education budgets and in advocating for changes to policy and practice.

Yet up until now few of these coalitions have made really strong connections with human rights activists or lawyers and almost none have taken legal action to challenge discrimination in education systems. This is indeed the next challenge – to build bridges between different constituencies so that social mobilisation by rights holders and legal action can go hand in hand. This is what I see the right to education project promoting and this is why discussions like this are so important! Thank you.

The below answers are drawn from my experience as an academic researcher as well as my extensive participation in programmes run by non-state actors intending to integrate minorities in the educational system and enhance their school performance. In my capacity as the newly-appointed Special Secretary for Educational Planning and Intercultural Education at the Greek Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs, my intention is to seek to overcome these obstacles where effective action can be taken at the institutional level. Thalia Dragona

Key obstacles to achieving changes in legislation, administration, resource allocation, but also attitudes, teaching methods and learning content in order to address discrimination:
• Governments until now have shown a lack of political will to take decisive action in legislation, in administration reform, in curriculum revision, etc in the face of vocal resistance to such reform from ideologically-motivated groups
• Lack of reliable data and regular & consistent monitoring mechanisms. Lack of comprehensive planning and formulation of clear objectives and indicators. Unawareness of complexity and pitfalls.
• Lack of law enforcement mechanisms where laws against discrimination exist
• Lack of reliable reporting mechanisms for discrimination cases in the school setting, no one to complain to.
• Lack of communication between schools and communities: even if the school community seeks to enforce changes, they end at the school’s doorsteps
• Failure to see discrimination in the school setting in the broader social cohesion context.
• Lack of coordination between governmental and/or non-governmental bodies with different fields of responsibility, e.g. social affairs provide services in place A, education in place B, resulting in place B children not receiving material assistance to go to school.
• Lack of investment in skills development for teachers to enable them to implement curriculum.
• Lack of preparedness of teachers to deal with diversity and with discrimination cases in class.
• Formal education emphasises on traditional subjects (language, math etc); limited focus on transversal/social skills e.g. communication, coexistence, etc.
• Not taking into consideration the immediately affected persons’/groups’ views in the decision-making processes.
• Deeply embedded mentalities and prejudice with regards to groups traditionally victims of discrimination

The international human rights framework is very strong on discrimination (Art 2 of the CRC and similar provisions). How can it be used better to translate principles into reality for the rights-holder?
• Sensitisation/awareness-raising on CRC among all stakeholders in the school community (head teacher, inspectors, counsellors, teachers, parents, pupils)
• Specific training for teachers on CRC provisions and relevant enforcement mechanisms
• Inclusion of CRC and national legislation on discrimination in the school curriculum (e.g. through civic education); development of human rights education curriculum (or similar)
• Development of well-publicized reporting mechanisms for cases of discrimination in the school setting (e.g. focal points for reporting etc.) and linkup with independent institutions dealing with such issues (e.g. ombudsman)
• Setup of school committees representative of the school community at large (teachers, parents, etc.) as well as pupils’ committees to follow-up and monitor discrimination issues.
• Recruitment of social workers (with paralegal background?) in schools, with counselling to children and families as a duty.
• Organisation of community events around children’s rights in the school setting & opening-up of schools to the community (e.g. 20 November Universal Children’s Day)

The word discrimination is a vast and need full interpretaion in legal sense not only for education for other reasons as well.In some countries discrimination starts from the very birth of a child, in most countries like Pakistan ,India and bangladesh people are not happy with born of a femal child.So first of all we have to educate right from the primary level all children about the human rights and equal status of both male and femal at all level.
Women are treated very low profile mostly in Asian countries and thats why we have to start street to street edcation about women right.
some of Asain countries as i live in Pakistan and what i am feeling here that here is three classes SUPPER,MIDDLLE AND POOR CLASS,The supper or rich class send their children to europe or usa for education or they by their power of money or political background secure places in highly profile schools.This discrimination is totaly agianst the Human rights of equal eduaction and for this purpose we have to educate our international commnity to bring all school at the same level wherein everbody can go for education.The second is Middle class again they have to opputunity to grip a place in some good private schools low profile from the upper class communities.The third is poor and helpless people who even can not afford to live in this world so how can they be able to afford the education expenses for their children.
I have a few suggestions :-
1. That the United Nation shall immeidately pass a resolution that all the schools colleges and universities around the world shall charg equal and mininum fees.As i have an experience that in europe,usa, universities charg international students more than twice as compare to their home student.This is a clear disrimination between home and international student ,this kind of discrination may on first priorty be demolished.
2.That under the umbrallah of united nation there shall be an international conference for equal education for all .
3.That we need the legislation that in all universities and college and schools human rights law as a compulsory subject shall be included in sylabus.
3.That all private school ,colleges and universities shall be baned or they shall not charg high fees and the sylabus shall be the same.As for examply in Pakistan,indian,bangladesh the Governement School perfomance is very low than compare to Private instutions,the sylabus is totaly different from Governtment school.This discrimination shall be stoped and we need an urgent laws to bring all humang being on equal type of education.The disadvange of this two types of edcaion is that only rich people can get highly profile post and jobs.
4.That the united nation need a legislaiton and legislate some special punitive laws if any one or intstitution violates.
The united nation need to educate people street to street and also starts some TV CHANAL about human rights,these are only possible if the united nation made some amentments and force the international community to impose the laws on equal bases .
HURDLE IN THE WAY OF EQUAL EDUATION
1. That the rich class ,like politician,bussinessmen,ect do not want to bring the child of a poor man to the equal status as they do not want to finish their monoply in politics.
2.The Governtment missionary are mostyly rich poeple and highly profile post are also in hands of rich community and they do not want to share their chair of power to helpless and poor people.
3.Poverty is the main hurdle in education and we need some legislation for those who prefer hard work to earn and support their families than education.For this purpose of education to all human beings we shall need an urgent policy of free education,THE EXAMPLE IS SWEDEN free education for all.
The united nation may kindly pass a unanimouse resolution that GOOD QUALITY EDUCATION IS FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS NOT FOR ONLY RICH HUMAN BEINGS.

hello. i am enjoying reading the posts on discrimination in education! my post will focus more on teaching methods and learning content.

I come from a human rights based approach to teaching. i used this method of teaching while in the classroom, i have trained teachers both new to the field and those who have been in the classroom for many years on human rights education. the premise of this style of teaching is that to teach with a human rights based approach you are changing not only WHAT you teach but HOW you teach. the intrinsic change that can transform a person's life is seen when either a student, teacher or administrator commits to dedicating his or her time and passion to the study of human rights.

I work as an advocate for human rights with schools and teachers across the United States and have seen the real change occur when one or two dedicated human rights educators weaves HRE into his or her content area. i have seen entire schools dedicate early December to Human Rights Day.....to letting their students speak out on injustices that occur in their own lives to advocating for those who may not have a voice. i have seen the change as students are allowed to conduct an open minded examination of the world around them and to challenge the status quo that promotes inequity.

Through HRE we can hear our students as they respond to the needs of the world around them. By teaching for and about HRE we are creating responsible students and future leaders who can act on an issue they feel stronlgy about. The methods for teaching HRE are student centered and not driven by textbooks and tests. They provide tools that foster a safe, inclusive learning environment for all learners. HRE promotes teaching that the UDHR is the universal umbrella that encompasses the teaching of anti-bullying, anti-racism, anti-sexism, mutiple perspectives on culture, race, ethicity, religion and gender. If an educator has been trained in HRE he or she may become that passionate dedicated example of "walking the walk"...... as you teach, modeling is essential if the teacher wants to inspire his/her students

In your experience, what are the key obstacles to achieving these changes?

In my experience those who want to find a way to even the playing fields of education have proven that the strength and quality of the teacher can override the outside obstacles. if you allow the teachers the freedom to teach through a human rights lens, while still continuing to teach content, then you will have succeeded in creating a more fair.....just......classroom community...and society. When the students know their rights and are held accountable to be responsible for not only their rights but the righst of others.....you will be giving them a gift for a lifetime. they will be able to transfer the language from the classroom to their real lives. Because teaching about, for and through human rights education is about empowering your students to play a role in their community and shape their future. By validating their ideas and listening to their concerns will allow them to feel like they are a part of the international human rights movement!
Peace.
happy human rights day!

I would like to share with you some of the experiences from the EU and Denmark on protectiion against discrimination and promoting equal treatment.

Within the European Union legislation has been adopted both at the Union level and in the member states with the purpose of translating the universal prohibition against discrimination into local regulation. The legal protection has become even stronger with the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty which introduces the right not to be discriminated against as a fundamental right.

The grounds encompassed by the prohibition on the member state level are: gender, age, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, reglion and belief. Legal protection is, however, still missing in the area of education when it comes to discrimination on the gorounds of age, sexual orientation, disability, religion and belief. A new directive is expected in 2010 which will include these grounds on all areas outside the labour matked, including education.

An effective remedy in translation the prohibition against discrimination into effective protection in the EU member states has been the setting up of National Equality Bodies with the power to review individual complaints on discrimination and in some countries also to pay damages.

These equality bodies also play an important role in promoting the values and principles in which the prohibition against discrimination is embedded via campaigns and/or material for pupils.

In Denmark, the Danish Institute for Human Rights has been engaged in the development of teaching material for primary school and in projects aiming at integrating equal treatment as a topic throughout the curricula in a school in Copenhagen.

I am convinced that a tripple strategy must be applied in order to achieve effective protection against discrimination: full legal protection covering discrimination and at the same time the setting up of structures that ensure access to have individual complaints reviewed by an independent body, as well as structures facilitating the promotion of anti-discrimination and equal treatment.

Let me point at different components of each string of a such non-discrimination strategy that are decisive for effective protection against discrimination:

Regulation should be supported by public administrative procedures that strengthen and support the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment. This has been done throughout many years in Nordic and EU countries by applying the concept of mainstreaming. Hence, assessments of the impact of new legislation on discrimination and equal treatment have been integrated and are carried out as part of the preparatory work of Bills and administrative regulation. Moreover, impact assesments are made as part of the subsequent monitoring of correct application of legal regulation.

Easily accessible, affordable and effective administrative complaints handling systems are other necessary components of the legal system. Such bodies should be seen as complementary to the conventional judicial system as they may serve also as mediating organs that facilitate consensus oriented processes (rather than conflict improving.) It goes without saying that the independence and integrity of such administrative bodies are decisive for their effective functioning and ability to provide complainants with just and fair decisions. Most existing equality bodies within the EU have the power to review cases on discrimination within the education system. It could to be considered, though, whether the national context makes it necessary to set up specialized strutures for the field of education.

Just as important as the legal structures, are strucures or bodies with the purpose of promoting non-discrimination and equal treatment. It is thus of immense importance for the translation into local norms and practices that a body is appointed and vested with the mandate to promote diversity and equal opportunities for all. It is through contionuous commitment to and promotion of the idea of diversity as a positive potential and driver for the social and economic development of our countries, that we may achieve effective protection against discrimination. It is essential that we focus on the negative impact of stereotyping and prejudices in all areas of society, including – and perhaps especially – in education.

In 2008, when acting as Vice Director of the Danish Institute for Human Rights, I had a small film made based on an American excperiment from the1940s. It shows the choice of black children in Copenhagen when presented to a black and a white doll. Most of them prefer the white doll. This indicates a strong influence of a majority cultural majority and specific expectations and preferences concerning colour and ethnicity.
You may watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq7HL-1iRok

This phenomenon can only be changed if we start teaching non-discrimination and resepct for diversity in primary schools and have campaigns and information material reaching out to the rest of our societies.

If discrimination is not fully exposed, it cannot be effectively opposed....

At times legislations do the opposite. By passing legislations, we legitimize the wrong things in the system. E.g RTE which got passed in Aug 2009, itself states 4-5 categories of schools and takes us further away from "common schooling system". So here legislation helping to fuel the discrimination .

Please read my detailed article on the same:
http://www.right-to-education.org/node/639
http://www.right-to-education.org/sites/r2e.gn.apc.org/files/Shantanu_Gu...

Discrimination and fighting with it, is well know fact nowdays. Governments, International institutions doing a lot in that direction. The problem is your personal relations. You can do 1000 trainings or 10000 good, kind law measures but if people are thinking in same manner of stereotypes and prejudices, nothing is going to help. For my own point of view the main problem is that majority of measures undertaken in discrimination fighting are very teoretical. When time comes to implement it, nobody dosent know how it is looks like in reality. We have plenty of experts about Roma, it is difficult to count them. The problem is that all that Roma experts are non-Roma people at first and at second they have no idea how Roma people looks like. Teory and practice are different.
Every country has their own reality, specific atributes and features. Therefore when we are talking about International Frameworks and soone, we have to take into account that in “every finger has his owun finger-print”. Legislation must be ajusted for local conditions.
Also, people are not familiar with inernational rules. And the main issue that “international human rights framework” must being mandatory rule.

The right to education is important and human rights defenders agree that it has a multiplier effect in advancing other rights. I have held the view that it is for this very reason that denial of right to education is used as a political tool in some countries to 'disempower' some sections of the population. Discrimination in education comes in various shades. The issues will not emerge clearly when lump all victims as as vulnerable groups. The right education must include rights in education. WHat is the quality of education provided particularly in the developing world?. Under what conditions is education provided?. I have argued on many public patforms that the education provided must be worthwhile otherwise it becomes a waste of time for the children. In deed I agre with UNESCO (2005) that education systems that do not have strong human rights elements cannot be said to be of good quality. In Ghana the education sector reports over the years do not even mention the impact of conflicts on education in conflict affected communities. A number of these communities exist and in some cases the entire area has only two hours of normal day because of curfew imposed as a result of the tensions. There is no emergency education programming in Ghana. This must be challenged. We need to ask questions through evidence baseed research. Generic approaches must be supported by context specific analysis. What is the role of child labour, what is the impact of stigmatisation of HIV victims, the warehousing of special needs children in so called special schools only for them to reconverge in mainstream classrooms with very little support facilities and attendant frustrations? Right holders need to be more accomodating by engaging broader audience to discuss the issues. Civil society groups need to stop working in isolation and build networks and partnerships that are strong enough to virtually compel the state functionaries to engage. The issues are more complex and I will come back again to explain some more pointedly.

Two Key Problems In Confronting Discrimination In Education
 
Two key problems make it difficult to confront discrimination in education: (i) There are two, fundamentally opposed usages of the word "discrimination," and (ii) many people are in favor of discrimination: they use militant-sounding rhetoric of being against discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and so forth, while simultaneously pressing for laws and polices based on discrimination. These two problems are so serious, and so widespread, that it makes it hard to have constructive dialogues on ending discrimination in education, or in any field.
 
This contribution will briefly discuss the first problem of the multiple meanings of “discrimination,” although the two key problems are linked: the shifting meanings of discrimination allow people to be both for and against discrimination, without ever facing the contradiction. (It is based on Bruce Abramson, Article 2: The Right of Non-Discrimination (Martinus Nijhoff, 2009), which is part of a series, A Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.)
 
1. The Two Opposing Meanings of “discrimination”
First, there is the ordinary meaning of discrimination, the definition that has been found in standard dictionaries for generations, and second, there is special, term-of-art usage.
 
A. The ordinary meaning
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines the verb discriminate as: “to make a difference in treatment or favor on a class or categorical basis in disregard of individual merit.” The actor classifies individuals as members of a particular race, sex, religion, and so forth, and then treats them differently in accordance with their membership classification. Discrimination entails two variables: (a) a criterion upon which the differential treatment hinges, and (b) a sphere of life, or “interest,” to which the differential treatment pertains. For instance, a school has a policy that only males can receive scholarships to study engineering: the a-variable is sex (people are classified as male or female), and the b-variable is the interest in having a scholarship. This rule discriminates against females, while it discriminates in favor of males: the actor uses a person’s sex classification (the a-variable) to allocate a social good, a scholarship (the b-variable). Note that all acts of discrimination actually involve two acts of treatment: members of one group are discriminated against, while members of another group are discriminate in favor of. In other words, the race (etc.)-based treatment causes differential enjoyment of the interest in question: in this examples, females are treated adversely to males, on account of their sex, with respect to getting scholarships; males are treated more favorably. International law recognizes a right of non-discrimination (e.g., Articles 2 of the UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR, and the CRC). The right identifies the prohibited grounds of differentiation (race, sex, etc.), and the protected interests are the spheres of life that come under the sectoral rights contained in the agreement. In other words, the right to be free from discrimination protects individuals from adverse treatment based on their race (sex, etc.) in the enjoyment of their human rights. So, the males-only rule on scholarships violates the right to non-discrimination, in conjunction with the right to education, under the ICESCR and the CRC (and it also violates the CEDAW.) Note also that the dictionary definition of discrimination does not contain any qualification like “reasonable,” “fair,” or “proportionate.” Whether an action is race, etc. discrimination is a “cut-and-dried,” or “objective, factual matter; whether the discrimination is fair (reasonable, proportionate) is a subjective matter; and whether it is lawful is a legal question. Similarly under international law: the UN human rights treaties absolutely prohibit conditioning a person’s enjoyment of human rights on the basis of their race, sex, or other named criteria (unless the state made a valid reservation): the right of non-discrimination does not contain any subjective qualification. And finally, while Articles 2 of the four main UN human rights agreements use all-encompassing terms like “any forms” and “or other status,” these phrases cannot be interpreted literally, or in isolation of the rest of the provision. Under the ejusdem generis principle of interpretation (“general words following or perhaps preceding special words are limited to the genus indicated by the special words []; and express mention excludes other items []” ), the right of non-discrimination is not limited to the named grounds, but also, it cannot stretched to include every possible classification. A literal reading of the phrases leads to absurdity, since it is the nature of laws to make distinctions.
 
B. The special meaning
Oftentimes when people speak of “discrimination,” they don’t mean treatment based on race, etc.; they mean unfair treatment (or unreasonable, or disproportionate treatment). In other words, they introduce a subjective element. The subjective qualification can come into the meaning in two ways. First, the speaker can shift from the right of non-discrimination to a principle of non-discrimination. The right of non-discrimination in Articles 2 of the Covenants and the CRC are rules -- concrete don’ts --, and they are absolute rules (absent a valid reservation). By contrast, a principle is a generalization: a principle must always be balanced against other principles when applied to real-life situations; a principle is subject to some kind of a reasonableness (or proportionality) qualification in its application. Second, the speaker can shift from the traditional definition of discrimination to an special usage: instead of meaning, “to make a difference in treatment or favor on a class or categorical basis in disregard of individual merit,” they use discrimination to denote “unfair treatment.” Under either technique, a person can speak militantly against discrimination, while pressing for state-imposed discrimination. The underlying thinking will go something like this: “I feel that it is really important to achieve such-and-such objective, and I think that using race (sex. etc.) classifications is a reasonable way to go about it: I believe that it is reasonable to deprive people of this particular race (sex, etc.) of valuable social goods, on the basis of that membership, is a reasonable way to achieve this important objective.” That was how South Africa defended apartheid before the International Court of Justice, and that, in essence, is how any proponent of race, etc. discrimination defends discrimination (with discrimination being used in its ordinary meaning).
 
2. Other sources of confusion
There are a number of other terms that cause confusion in discussions of discrimination, such as: indirect discrimination; structural (systemic, institutional) discrimination; positive discrimination; positive action; and affirmative action. All of these terms have multiple meanings, and, very often, proponents of race, etc. discrimination uses these terms to push for discriminatory laws and policies. For instance, many people use “positive discrimination” and “affirmative action” as euphemisms for race, etc. discrimination. And in the large majority of “indirect discrimination” cases, the actor has not engaged in discrimination (in the ordinary sense of the word).
 
Conclusion
Because of the shifting in meanings, it is often hard to have a good discussion about discrimination. Very often, the language problem is linked to politics. As Orwell observed: “[P]olitical speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. … Thus, political language has come to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. … [I]f Thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought” (from, "Politics and the English Language.")

I agree that the principle of non-discrimination is a strong and fundamental element of international human rights law. Much progress has been achieved around the world thanks to the application of this principle (and in many areas, not only education).
 
However, if taken to the letter, it does not offer protection from other forms of discrimination based, for example, on health status, age or income. Yet, people living with HIV/AIDS (both students and teachers) are still often excluded from education and even when they are not, they are otherwise stigmatised or discriminated against in terms of attitudes by fellow students, colleagues, or parents. Age is equally, although more subtly, discriminatory when educational systems do not allow adults to enrol in schools on the assumption that these are places only for children or when curricula and delivery systems are not adapted to the needs of adults. Discrimination on the basis of income or economic status is one of the most widespread forms of exclusion if one thinks about the impact that direct and indirect fees/costs have on access to education for the poorest or most deprived groups of any society.
 
Lists are always limiting and not exhaustive, and one can understand that, but in order to “fully expose” discrimination, we need to name and identify as many manifestations of discrimination as possible. Here is where interpretations by courts and judicial/administrative bodies can really help make a difference (and they already have in many cases). On free education and accessibility, for example, the Colombian Constitutional Court in 2003 held that lack of income and transportation costs need to be taken into account when assigning children to schools [see http://www.right-to-education.org/node/685]. As for adult education, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasised in General Comment 13 that the right to fundamental education is not limited by age [see http://www.right-to-education.org/sites/r2e.gn.apc.org/files/Adult%20literacy%20flyer.pdf]. For HIV/AIDS, the Kerala High Court is a case in point: in 2006 it issued a notice to the district education officers and the Parent Teachers Association ordering a school to re-enrol five HIV-positive children who had been expelled.
 
One way of better using the existing framework, therefore, could be to encourage advocacy groups, education coalitions, the media, civil society and governmental actors to publicise and popularise case-law, administrative decisions, and authoritative interpretations by human rights bodies in order to offer and share concrete illustrations of this principle and inspiration for similar actions elsewhere.

When we talk about discrimination we are talking about power - and how those who have it consciously or unconsciously exclude those who don't.

The Barriers to Education Project in South Africa examined the relationship between poverty and school drop-out. Despite high levels of absolute poverty, South Africa has high enrolment rates (96%). Instead it is relative poverty - the feeling of being poor relative to other people that seems to be the key driver of drop-out in grades 1-9. Here we are looking at children from informal settlements (squatter camps) attending township schools, or children from the townships attending schools in the suburbs. These children tend to leave school because they have less than other learners and feel ashamed of where they come from. This sense of social exclusion may be unconcious or it may be driven by active discrimination on the part of school management, teachers and learners

This has serious implications for social change, and raises questions about what kind of support systems are needed to help children break through barriers of race, class and poverty.

I also worry that many people enter teaching for the wrong reasons. It is all too easy to see teachers as caring and benevolent with a genuine interest in their learners well-being and development. Yet many teachers choose to the enter the profession for the money, status and power that comes with the position. These teachers are not interested in relinquishing control or fostering a human rights culture in the classroom. So perhaps more work needs to be done in relation to teacher selection, and training so that teachers can develop a real respect for their own and other people's worth and dignity.