Mapeo sobre Tendencias de la Privatización de la Educación en América Latina y el Caribe
La investigación presenta las formas contemporáneas de privatización en el campo educativo y los posibles impactos para la realización del derecho humano a la educación para todos y todas
Digest of Observations and Recommendations of Treaty Bodies on the Role of Private Actors and the Right to Education (2000-2015)
This document lists and details the observations and recommendations of UN human rights treaty bodies on the role of private actors in education.
Impuestos, privatización y educación: influir las políticas de financiación de la educación para transformar las vidas de los niños (1)
A Right to Education Initiative y ActionAid les complace anunciar un pequeño pero ambicioso proyecto para ofrecer una investigación de alta calidad y basada en los derechos humanos sobre el impacto de la educación privada “de bajo costo” en el derecho a la educación, la reducción del papel del gobierno como proveedor de educación y los beneficios de un sistema tributario más justo.
Louisiana Federation of Teachers v Louisiana (Supreme Court of Louisiana; 2013)
The Supreme Court of Louisiana held that Louisiana’s ‘Minimum Foundation Program’, which allocates educational funding to schools, could not be used to provide funding to privates schools by way of a voucher programme. It ruled that to do so violated article VIII, section 13 of the Louisiana Constitution, which establishes how monies are to be allocated to public schools based on a formula adopted by the state board of education.
Bush v Holmes (Supreme Court of Florida; 2006)
In this decision, the Florida Supreme Court held that a voucher program providing public funds to students to obtain private education failed to comply with article IX, section 1 of the Florida Constitution, which requires the state government to make adequate provision for education through a uniform system of free public schools. This decision confirms Florida’s constitutional obligation to provide high quality, free public education – a duty that cannot be discharged by funding unregulated private schools through a voucher or scholarship program.
Society for Unaided Private Schools v India (Supreme Court of India; 2012)
In this decision, the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of section 12 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE Act), which requires all schools, both state-funded and private, to accept 25% intake of children from disadvantaged groups. However, the Court held that the RTE Act could not require private, minority schools to satisfy a 25% quota, as this would constitute a violation of the right of minority groups to establish private schools under the Indian Constitution.
Environmental & Consumer Protection Foundation v Delhi (Supreme Court of India; 2012)
In response to a petition filed by an Indian charity, the Supreme Court of India directed the governments of all States and Union Territories to ensure that all schools, whether private or state-run, provide proper toilet facilities, drinking water, sufficient classrooms and capable teaching staff. The court held that, under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (2009) and the Indian Constitution, central, state and local governments have an obligation to ensure that all schools, both public and private, have adequate infrastructure.
Mohini Jain v Karnataka (Supreme Court of India; 1992)
In this case, a resident of Uttar Pradesh state challenged a notification issued by the Karnataka government that permitted private medical colleges to charge higher fees to students who were not allocated 'government seats'. The Supreme Court of India held that the charging of a ‘capitation fee’ by the private educational institutions violated the right to education, as implied from the right to life and human dignity, and the right to equal protection of the law.
Juma Musjid Primary School v Essay (Constitutional Court of South Africa; 2011)
In this decision, the Constitutional Court of South Africa held that an eviction order obtained by an owner of private land on which a public school was located could not be enforced where it would impact students’ right to basic education and the best interests of the child under the South African Constitution (sections 28 and 29). The Court held that a private landowner and non-sate actor has a constitutional obligation not to impair the right to basic education under section 29 of the Constitution.