On 7 July 2014, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) held a General Discussion on the Right to Education for Girls and Women, the aim of which is to commence the Committee’s process of elaborating a “General Recommendation on girls’/women’s right to education.”
Thirteen organizations from around the world, included the Right to Education Initiative, presented a written submission to CEDAW on ‘Privatization and its Impact on the Right to Education of Women and Girls,’ highlighting evidence from a range of countries showing that more boys are enrolled in schools than girls, a problem that is exacerbated by the increasing privatization of education. Privatization in many cases deepens gender discrimination in education because already marginalized and vulnerable groups, including women and girls, are more disadvantaged by private provision and are the least able to pay for services.
Parallel Report submitted by the National Campaign for Education-Nepal, the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Sciences Po law school Clinic, and partners, on the occasion of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Nepal during the 23rd session of the UPR Working Group.
This report shows that the current organisation of education system in Nepal, in particular a high level of unregulated private involvement in education, is creating and entrenching segregation in education. Such segregation in itself constitutes a human rights violation and need to be ended. It is also the source of additional other human rights abuses, including discrimination on the grounds of socio-economic background, gender and race, the limitation of the right to free quality education, and the lowering of education quality. This situation is extremely problematic due to the immediate human rights violations it is causing, but also because the injustices it generates contribute to threatening the fragile social cohesion and peace that exist in Nepal.
RTE's background paper for the Global Education Monitoring Report 2017/8: Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments.
The purpose of the paper is to show how a human rights-based approach offers insights and practical solutions to address the accountability deficits found in both education policy decision-making and implementation, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Specifically, the paper argues that a human rights-based approach to accountability can bolster public policy accountability by defining the responsibilities of authorities, ensuring they are answerable for actions regarding those responsibilities, and how they can be subject to forms of enforceable sanctions or remedial action for failures to carry out those responsibilities.
As the national government is the primary duty bearer for the right to education it is important for any report on accountability to start with the responsibilities of government. The paper provides an overview of the right to education legal framework to which States have legally committed, as well existing international and regional accountability mechanisms.
The paper then explores the connections between the 2030 Agenda, the Incheon Declaration, and human rights law. The Incheon Declaration affirms, ‘the vision and political will reflected in numerous international and regional human rights treaties that stipulate the right to education and its interrelation with other human rights” (para. 2). In the Declaration education is framed as both a “public good” and a “fundamental human right” (para. 5). However, whether a rights-based approached is consistent or present in the operationalisation of SDG4 has not been clearly debated. Part of this challenge is the diluted and often, overly simplistic notion of what the right to education entails. The paper seeks to better understand the similarities and differences of these two large global frames for education and includes a matrix that links the normative content of each framework. This matrix shows that the content of each is largely aligned, even if the processes are not. The paper argues that by recasting the content of SDG4 as part of the right to education, the legal obligations owed to that content can be invoked. This renders various elements of SDG4, if the state in question has legally committed to the right to education and incorporated the right to education in their domestic legal orders, amenable to adjudication by competent mechanisms, offering the possibility of legal accountability through legal enforcement.
The second half of the paper explores the prevalence of the right to education in national laws and the conditions necessary for the right to education to be successfully adjudicated at the national level. It provides an overview of how countries have incorporated the right to education in their domestic legal orders, as well as a list of countries where the right to education is justiciable. This is complemented by a series of case studies that draw out the requirements for successful adjudication at the national level.
At the national level the incorporation and implementation of the right to education, as required by international treaties, requires at least three stages. Firstly, countries must translate their international legal commitment into concrete action to ensure the full enjoyment of the right to education. This includes the incorporation of the right to education into the domestic legal order, through the adoption of education laws and policies. Secondly, countries must secure the right to education as a justiciable right. Lastly, the justiciable right to education must be able to be adjudicated fairly through the judicial system. Whilst the first stage is completed at a near universal level by countries, the final two stages, essential for the fulfilment of the right to education, are achieved by significantly fewer countries. Even when justiciability is present, various barriers may be present that hinder the adjudication of the right to education. Understanding how countries move from incorporation to application and implementation is essential to understanding whether the right to education is truly realised in a country. Our analysis shows that legal enforcement, through mechanisms competent to hold duty-bearers legally accountable, has a positive impact on the realisation of the right to education. Furthermore, little is known about how the political, social, and cultural context of a country limits or enables the adjudication of the right to education. This paper examines court cases from countries around the world to identify the conditions that enable the right to education to be realised through adjudication.
France’s investment in the education multinational Bridge International Academies (BIA) has raised serious concerns regarding the extraterritorial obligations (ETOs) of France, in relation to the rights set out in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), particularly, the right to education.
Alternative report submitted in March 2020 by 13 civil society organisations, including the Right to Education Initiative, to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at the occasion of the review by the independent experts of the Committee of the implemention by France of its human rights obligations, as definied under the ICESCR.
Dans ce rapport, la Rapporteuse spéciale sur le droit à l'éducation des Nations unies, Koumba Boly Barry, examine la mise en œuvre du droit àl’éducation et de l’objectif de développement durable 4 face à l’importance croissante des acteurs privés dans le domaine de l’éducation.
Elle présente au Conseil des droits de l’homme et aux États Membres de l’Organisation des Nations Unies les Principes d’Abidjan sur les obligations en matière de droits de l’homme qui incombent aux États de fournir un enseignement public et de réglementer la participation du secteur privé dans le domaine de l’éducation, etrecommande de les mettre pleinement en œuvre.
Elle rappelle que le droit international des droits de l’homme impose aux États l’obligation de garantir un enseignement public gratuit et de qualité. Selon leur nature et leurs objectifs, les acteurs privés peuvent contribuer à la réalisation du droit à l’éducation et favoriser notamment le respect de la diversité culturelle en proposant de nouvelles formes d’éducation. Le sous-financement chronique de l’enseignement public et l’essor rapide et non réglementé des acteurs privés, en particulier ceux à vocation commerciale, dans le domaine de l’éducation, menacent toutefois la mise en œuvre du droit à l’éducation pour tous et la réalisation de l’objectif de développement durable 4.
Le rapport contient des observations et des recommandations concernant l’obligation qui incombe aux États de garantir et de financer un enseignement public, ainsi que des suggestions et des solutions concrètes. Il s’inspire des Principes d’Abidjan, notamment en ce qui concerne l’obligation de réglementer la participation des acteurs privés dans le domaine de l’éducation, les partenariats public-privé et le rôle des donateurs et de la société civile.
L'investissement de la France dans la multinationale d'enseignement Bridge International Academies (BIA) a soulevé de graves préoccupations quant à ses obligations extraterritoriales (OET) vis-à-vis de l'ensemble des droits garantis par le Pacte international relatif aux droits économiques, sociaux et culturels (PIDESC), et en particulier en matière de droit à l'éducation.
Rapport alternatif soumis en mars 2020 par 13 orgnisations de la société civile, dont l'Initiative pour le droit à l'éducation (Right to Education Initiative), au Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels à l'occasion de la revue par les experts du Comité de la mise en oeuvre par France de ses obligations en matière de droits de l'Homme, telles que définies par le PIDESC.
In this report, the Special Rapporteur commends the efforts made by Governments, who were under harsh pressure, to preserve human lives while facing scientific uncertainties.
The health crisis has had numerous implications in all sectors of human life, leading to an economic crisis, as well as to what must be called an education crisis. In this report, the Special Rapporteur analyses the issues she considers to be the most pressing from a human rights perspective. Acting within a human rights framework is indeed crucial to ensure that measures adopted in response to the pandemic do not jeopardize the right to education and do not increase the suffering of the most marginalized.
The Special Rapporteur stresses that while numerous innovative measures have been adopted in all corners of the globe by many governmental as well as non-governmental stakeholders to ensure some continuity of education, they could never have been expected to compensate for the patent global lack of preparedness for a crisis of this magnitude. Past failure to build strong and resilient education systems and to fight entrenched inequalities has opened the door for a dramatic impact on the most vulnerable and marginalized, to which no temporary measure adopted in haste could have fully responded.
The Special Rapporteur makes a number of recommendations in this regard. In particular, a thorough assessment should be conducted to unpack, in each local context, the dynamics at play that led to increased discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to education during the crisis. It should include an analysis of rising inequalities due to the measures adopted to face the pandemic; an investigation into the sustainability of economic and financial models behind education systems, including the consequence of poor funding of public educational institutions; a scrutiny of the role of private actors in education; an evaluation of the adequacy of social protection provided for education workers, including in the private sector; and scrutiny of the lack of cooperation between States’ administrations, educational institutions, teachers, learners, parents and communities.
Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur stresses that the deployment of online distance learning (together with radio and television), should only be seen as a temporary solution aimed at addressing a crisis. The digitalization of education should never replace onsite schooling with teachers, and the massive arrival of private actors through digital technology should be considered as a major danger for education systems and the right to education for all in the long term. A thorough debate needs to take place on the place that should be given to such learning in the future, having in mind not only possible opportunities but also the deleterious effect screens have on children and youth, including their right to health and education.
Joint statement made by GI-ESCR and the Right to Education Initiative at the 44th session of the UN Human Rights Council in July 2020 welcoming the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to education on the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the right to education. The statement emphasised her call for States to prioritise the funding and delivery of free, quality, public education, and implement minimum standards to secure the privacy and data protection for learners and teachers.
In the present report, the Special Rapporteur reviews the situation of refugees with regard to the right to education, in particular in the context of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Reports on the broader issue of education in emergencies were presented to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/8/10) and the General Assembly (A/66/269) by previous incumbents. The Special Rapporteur considers that it is relevant to follow-up on the issue in today’s context. She touches on the specific challenges refugees face in their quest for quality education at all levels, reflects on some best practices and innovations set in place in countries and proposes recommendations to overcome challenges in this area.
The Special Rapporteur concludes by calling upon States to ensure access to inclusive quality educ ation for refugees in line with Goal 4 of the Sustainable Development Goal, by mainstreaming this in their national plans and strategies.