In July 2010, the Right to Education Project convened a consultative workshop, Beyond statistics: measuring education as a human right, with the aim to explore reactions from human rights, development and education experts on its set of indicators and its use in the field. This document presents the reflections and comments that emerged from the consultation.

This report was submitted by the Right to Education Initiative and nine organisations - including British organisations, organisations based in developing countries and international organisations on the occasion of the 3rd Cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK). 

The report argues that the UK is failing to take its extraterritorial human rights obligations seriously by supporting (through the Department for International Development) non-State actors in providing education in developing countries, which in some instances undermines the right to education. 

This background paper, commissioned by the Education Commission to inform the report The Learning Generation: Investing in education for a changing worldaims to clarify the relevant provisions in human rights law that refer to the involvement of non-State actors in education in mixed education systems. Making reference to international human rights law, it analyses three cases studies (Pakistan, Chile, and community schools) selected to represent the wide variety of roles played by non-State providers in different geographical areas.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the State failed to comply with its duty to make ample provision for the education of all children in Washington through dependable and regular tax sources. The evidence showed that the State’s funding levels fell short in the areas of basic operational costs, student transportation, and staff salaries.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld a decision of the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (the ‘BC HRT’) (reversing the decisions of both the British Columbia Supreme Court and the British Columbia Court of Appeal) that the Board of Education of School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) (the ‘School District’), by closing a facility that provided intensive services and individualised assistance to students with severe learning disabilities, had denied a child with severe dyslexia access to a service customarily available to the public, being education, contrary to the British Columbia Human Rights Code (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210, s. 8). Although the School District was subject to severe funding constraints, it was found to have not acted with a bona fide and reasonable justification, which could have provided a defence to the Human Rights Code violation.

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. The Court also held that, unlike other socio-economic rights protected by the Constitution, the right to basic education is immediately realisable and any limitation of this right must be 'reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom'.

This case involves the interpretation of the scope of the constitutional right in South Africa to basic education and in particular whether the provision of school textbooks to all basic education learners for the whole academic year is an essential component of this right.

 

In these three related decisions, the Kansas Supreme Court held that legislative changes to K-12 school funding, which reduced state-aid payments augmenting funds generated through property taxation in school districts with lower property values, violated the Kansas constitution. Article 6 of the Kansas constitution has previously been interpreted by the Kansas Supreme Court to require equity and adequacy in the provision of financing for education. The Kansas Supreme Court found that the legislative changes violated the equity requirement because school districts did not have reasonably equal access to substantially equal educational opportunity through similar tax efforts.

This document compiles the national laws on private provision of education for most of the countries in the world.

Pages