Right to education

Most would agree that education is a necessary foundation for the proper growth and personal fulfilment of all. Education is undoubtedly intrinsic for a healthy and dynamic democracy where checks and balances, not only on authorities' actions, but also on the needs and problems of society, are vital for the true protection of all rights and freedoms.

An educated society will undoubtedly lead to a healthier, more mature state. Without a well-enforced right to education, democracy is endangered as no one can deny that an uneducated and blinkered society are the perfect ingredients to an oppressed society and the suppression of all rights and freedoms.

The duty to provide education lies with the state. With such a duty also lies a very powerful tool to either, on the one hand, produce productive, progressive societies, or, on the other, control and manipulate people's lives. With such opposing possibilities the right to education must not only be properly defined but also strongly protected and monitored.

The right to education is also fundamental to any democracy, and to the safeguarding of liberty, in that it touches not only on the better protection of civil and political rights, but also on economic, social and cultural rights, and thus to the right to development. It is an all-encompassing right.

It is also one of the most difficult rights to respect and protect in that it necessarily requires positive action from states, which certain states might not be in a position to carry out. For the right to education to be promoted, states must build schools, produce teachers, provide teaching materials, etc.

Many states either lack such financial resources, or are unable or unwilling to invest in such areas due to other priorities, such as buying weapons to protect the right to life from the threat of war. Priorities could here seem to be at a tangent.

What might appear to be a necessity for some might appear to be a luxury for others. And yet, providing people with a real education could also lead to the better protection of other rights, since education means progress and development, and development almost necessarily leads to a reduced possibility of wars and conflict, poverty and misery.

The vicious circle is hard to break on most occasions. In such cases, the duty of all states to carry the burden of less wealthy countries must be faced and properly handled in line with international duties and obligations.

However, even when countries are blessed with enough financial resources to provide their citizens with education, the proper respect for the right to education still faces many obstacles. This is because education is not limited merely to objective matters, such as are mathematics and physics.

A real, proper education includes many highly personal issues such as religion, philosophy, politics, languages, culture, etc. May a state wholly fulfil such a duty to satisfy all peoples' needs in providing a system of adequate education?

The answer is almost necessarily negative in today's multi-cultured societies. The fundamental notion to be understood is that the right to education is not absolute in the sense that a state may never succeed to fulfil all persons' ideas of what a full education might be.

On the other hand, however, a system of education may and must be objectively adequate, and at all times non-discriminatory. The underlying doctrine is that a state "must educate but it may not indoctrinate".

A distinction must also be made between education and teaching. The European Court of Human Rights (the Court), in Campbell and Cosans v UK of 1982, stated that education is "the whole process whereby, in any society, adults endeavour to transmit their beliefs, culture and other values to the young, whereas teaching or instruction refers in particular to the transmission of knowledge and to intellectual development".

A state may not interfere with a person's education, but it may regulate the teaching it provides. One goes hand in hand with the other. And yet a state may not condition one to the detriment of the other.

Thus, Protocol 1 article 2 to the European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR) provides that: "No person shall be denied the right to education." The negative formulation of this right better explains its foundational nature in that the premise is that any democracy will recognise and enforce a right to education or, at a minimum, work progressively in accordance with available financial resources at taking all necessary steps to provide an adequate educational system to its people.

The difficulty is in defining its meaning to encompass and cater for all societies' understanding of what an education should be and is. The ECHR has remained vague in its definition allowing the Court to define its substance and limitations according to the individual cases it is presented with. Objectivity, adequacy and non-discrimination remain a constant, however.

In the Belgian Linguistic Case of 1968, the Court stated that the right to education involves:

1. A right to access to educational institutions when these exist;

2. A right to an effective education; and

3. A right to official recognition of the studies a student has successfully completed.

Emphasis on this right is in fact not the entrenchment of a right to education but the need for this right to fall in line with just and fair principles, with a strong emphasis on the non-discriminatory nature of this fundamental pillar of any free society.

Thus, religion, political opinions, colour, race and background should in no way determine or condition one's right to learn and grow. It is on this basis that the second part of this article provides that:

"In the exercise of any functions, which it assumes in relation to education and teaching, the state shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions."

Thus, the state must provide adequate education. However, it must also allow private educational bodies to be established where these institutions might better fulfil others' conception of what a real education is, an education which is closer to their beliefs.

In this case, however, states will have the right to ensure that such institutions are of adequate efficiency and to regulate certain aspects of such private educational bodies, such as basic curriculum to be taught. This, as long as such regulations do not run counter to the right to education itself, and to other rights and freedoms.

States must therefore respect all religious and philosophical convictions, always provided that the expression and manifestation of such religious and/or philosophical convictions do not run counter to the respect of others' rights.

This is, in part, why many controversies have arisen in relation to sex education, and in relation to whether we are obliged to provide Muslims education to resident Muslims in a Christian state.

On the other hand, as the Court argued in Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen of 1976, no parent may object to a certain topic being discussed in school provided that any information passed on to the students is done in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner. It is interesting to note, just to be aware of the diversity in subjects taught even within Europe, that chess forms part of the national curriculum of Russia.

It is also interesting to note that this right not only involves a duty on states and a corresponding right to their citizens. It is also a right which provides parents with a right to provide their children with education as well as a corresponding duty to ensure that their children attend school or alternatively to provide their children with adequate education at their home or elsewhere.

Finally, for the right to education to be truly respected, promoted and protected, a state must adopt a holistic approach. In other words, education should not be limited to textbooks at school.

Social and cultural events should be given the importance they deserve. Tolerance and individuality should be encouraged. The aim of education should not be that of merely earning cash as an adult.

Education should produce mature, open-minded people capable of, one day, bringing up their children in a healthy environment and maybe even running their own country in line with the principles of universal morality and understanding.

No man is an island. Education could as easily realise this as it may negate it if the processing of knowledge is not understood for what it really is: a bridge to everyone and all without any limitations or borders.