Right To Education

History

What is the oldest source in any country that mentions this right?

In 1814, in a letter to Peter Carr, Thomas Jefferson speaks about the right to education. In a letter titled “A System of Education, dated September 7, 1814, Jefferson writes about his plans for an education system to Peter Carr. In this letter, Jefferson writes, “It is highly interesting to our country, and it is the duty of its functionaries, to provide that every citizen in it should receive an education proportioned to the condition and pursuits of his life” (Jefferson, 1814). Jefferson believed that every citizen had the right to an education, but each citizen had different needs when it came to being educated.

Jefferson goes on to discuss the two classes that citizens would be divided into and educated based on, the laboring class and the learned class. Of this, he writes, “The laboring will need the first grade of education to qualify them for their pursuits and duties; the learned will need it as a foundation for further acquirements” (Jefferson, 1814). In his detailed educational plan, Jefferson determines two categories that the majority of citizens can be split into, and establishes an educational route for both groups of students.

Source:

Jefferson, Thomas. “A System of Education” to Peter Carr, Monticello, September 7, 1814, Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library (https://web.archive.org/web/20110221115646/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all)

What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right? BUILD IN COLLAPSE EXPAND TOGGLE

Afghanistan

The Afghanistan Constitution of 1964 is the oldest written source in Afghanistan that mentions the right to education. It grants all citizens the right to education, saying “Education is the right of every Afghan and shall be provided free of charge by the State and the citizens of Afghanistan… Primary education is compulsory for all children in areas where facilities for this purpose are provided by the State” (Afghanistan Constitution, 1964, Article 34).

Source: Afghanistan Constitution, 1964, Article 34).

Albania

According to scholars, through the 1933 Royal Constitution in Albania, “‘primary education for all Albanian citizens is compulsory and free of charge’” (Kola, 2014, 424). Today, Article 57 of the Albanian Constitution states, “Everyone has the right to education” (Albanian Constitution, 1998, Article 57).

Source: Bedri Kola, “Development of Education During the Years 1944-1948 in Albania,” Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5, No. 4 (March 2014), 423-428

Algeria

Algeria became a country in 1962, and the year following its founding in 1963, it included the right to education in its constitution, making it the oldest written source in Algeria that discusses the right to education. Article 18 of the Algerian Constitution states, “Education is obligatory; instruction is offered to all, with no discrimination except those resulting from the aptitudes of each individual and the needs of the collectivity” (Algerian Constitution, 1963, Article 18).

Source: Algerian Constitution, 1963, Article 18

Andorra

The oldest source in Andorra that mentions the right to education is their constitution. Article 20 of the Andorra Constitution states, “All persons have the right to education, which shall be oriented towards the dignity and full development of the human personality, thus strengthening the respect for freedom and the fundamental rights” (Andorra Constitution, 1993, Article 20)

Source: Andorra Constitution, 1993 Article 20

Angola

The Constitution of Angola, written in 2010, states “The fundamental tasks of the Angolan state shall be …To promote policies that will ensure universal access to compulsory free education under the terms defined by law” (Angola Constitution, 2010, Article 21).

Source: Angola Constitution, 2012, Article 21

Antigua and Barbuda

The Education Act of 2008 is the oldest written source in the country of Antigua and Barbuda that mentions the right to education. It grants all citizens of Antigua and Barbuda the right to education, stating, “Subject to available resources, all persons are entitled to receive an educational programme appropriate to their needs in accordance with the provisions of this Act” (Education Act of 2008, page 23).

Source: Education Act of 2008, page 23

Argentina

The first source in Argentina that mentions the right to education is the National Education Law of 2006. Article 14 of this Law states, “ El Sistema Educativo Nacional es el conjunto organizado de servicios y acciones educativas reguladas por el Estado que posibilitan el ejercicio del derecho a la educación”, which translates to, “The National Educational System is the organized set of educational services and actions regulated by the state that enable the exercise of the right to education” (National Education Law of 2006, Article 14).

Source: National Education Law of 2006, Article 14

Armenia

The Armenian Constitution is the oldest written source in the country that mentions this right, written in 1995, four years after the country was founded, it states, “Everyone shall have the right to education. The programs and duration of compulsory education shall be stipulated by law. Secondary education in state educational institutions is free of charge” (Armenian Constitution, 1995, Article 38).

Source: Armenian Constitution, 1995, Article 38

Australia

In 1972 Australia signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, making this the first written document in Australia that mentions the right to education. Article 13 of this document says, “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education… They further agree that education shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace” (International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, Article 13, 1972).

Source: International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, Article 13, 1972

Austria

There has been no written source in Austria that mentions the right to education.

Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan’s Constitution, written in 1995 is the oldest written document in Azerbaijan that mentions the right to education. Their Constitution gives its citizens the right to education in Article 42, which states “Everyone has the right to an education. The State guarantees the right to free compulsory secondary education” (Azerbaijan Constitution, 1995, Article 42).

Source: Azerbaijan Constitution, 1995, Article 42

The Bahamas

The 1962 Education Act in The Bahamas is the first written document in this country to mention the right to education. This Act states, “It shall be the duty of the parents of every child of compulsory school age to cause him to receive full-time education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude, by regular attendance at school or otherwise” (Education Act, 1962, page 17).

Source: Education Act, 1962, page 17

Bahrain

There has been no written source is Bahrain that mentions the right to education.

Bangladesh

The Bangladesh Constitution is the oldest written document in Bangladesh that discusses the right to education, stating “It shall be a fundamental responsibility of the State to attain, through planned economic growth, a constant increase of productive forces and a steady improvement in the material and cultural standard of living of the people, with a view to securing to its citizens- (a) the provision of the basic necessities of life, including food, clothing, shelter, education and medical care” (Bangladesh Constitution, 1972, 15).

Source: Bangladesh Constitution, 1972, 15

Barbados

The oldest source in Barbados that mentions this right is the Education Act of 1983, which says “The function of the Minister are…(e) to contribute toward the spiritual, moral, mental, physical, social, cultural, and economic development of the community by ensuring that efficient education is available to meet the needs of Barbados” (Education Act, 1983, page 8).

Source: Education Act, 1983, page 8

Belarus

The Constitution of Belarus is the oldest written document in Belarus that mentions the right to education. Article 49 of the Constitution states, “Everyone shall have the right to education. Accessible and free general, secondary and vocational and technical education shall be guaranteed. Secondary specialized and higher education shall be accessible to all in accordance with the capabilities of each individual. Everyone may, on a competitive basis, get appropriate education at state educational institutions free of charge” (Belarus Constitution, 1994, Article 49).

Source: Belarus Constitution, 1994, Article 49

Belgium

The oldest written document in Belgium that mentions the right to education is their Constitution. Article 24 of the Belgium Constitution states, “Everyone has the right to education with the respect of fundamental rights and freedoms. Access to education is free until the end of compulsory education. All pupils of school age have the right to moral or religious education at the community’s expense” (Belgium Constitution, 1831, Article 24).

Source: Belgium Constitution, 1831, Article 24

Belize

There has been no written source in Belize that mentions the right to education.

Benin

The first mention of the right to education in Benin is in its constitution. Article 12 of the Benin Constitution states, “The State and public authorities shall guarantee the education of children and shall create conditions favorable to this end” (Benin Constitution, 1990, Article 12). Article 13 of the Constitution of Benin continues granting citizens the right to an education, “The State shall provide for the education of the youth by public schools. Primary education shall be obligatory. The state shall assure progressively free public education” (Benin Constitution, 1990, Article 13).

Source: Benin Constitution, 1990, Article 13

Bhutan

The first mention of the right to education in Bhutan is their constitution, which states “The State shall provide free education to all children of school going age up to tenth standard and ensure that technical and professional education is made generally available and that higher education is equally accessible to all on the basis of merit” (Bhutan Constitution, 2008, page 20).

Source: Bhutan Constitution, 2008, page 20

Bolivia

The first mention of the right to education in Bolivia is in Article 9 of their constitution. This article states, “The following are essential purposes and functions of the State, in addition to those established in the Constitution and the law: … to guarantee access of all people to education, health and work” (Bolivia Constitution, 2009, Article 9).

Source: Bolivia Constitution, 2009, Article 9

Bosnia and Herzegovina

The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the first written document that mentions the right to education. Under Article II, “Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”, Section 3 Enumeration of Rights, it states, “All persons within the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall enjoy the human rights and fundamental freedoms referred to in paragraph 2 above; these include: … l) The right to education” (Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1995, Section 3).

Source: Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1995, Section 3

Botswana

There has been no written source in Botswana that mentions the right to education.

Brazil

Article 208 of the Brazilian Constitution is the first written document in Brazil to mention the right to education. This article of the Constitution states, “The duty of the State towards education shall be fulfilled by ensuring the following: I- Mandatory basic education, free of charge, for every individual from the age of 4 (four) through the age of 17 (seventeen), including the assurance of its free offer to all those who did not have access to it at the proper age” (Brazil Constitution, 1988, Article 208).

Source: Brazil Constitution, 1988, Article 208

Brunei

There has been no written source in Brunei that mentions the right to education.

Bulgaria

The Bulgarian Constitution, written in 1991 is the first document in Bulgaria that mentions the right to education. Article 53 outlines the right to education in Bulgaria, “Everyone shall have the right to education” (Bulgaria Constitution, 1991, Article 53).

Source: Bulgaria Constitution, 1991, Article 53

Burkina Faso

There has been no written source in Burkina Faso that mentions the right to education.

Burundi

The first mention of the right to education in Burundi is in Article 53 of the Constitution, which states, “Every citizen has the right to equal access to instruction, education, and culture” (Burundi Constitution, 2005, Article 53).

Source: Burundi Constitution, 2005, Article 53

Cambodia

/ Didn't find this one.

Cameroon

The first written source in Cameroon that acknowledges the right of education is the constitution of 1972: "the State shall guarantee the child's right to education. Primary education shall be compulsory. The organization and supervision of education at all levels shall be the bounden duty of the State”.

Source: “Cameroon 1972 (Rev. 2008) Constitution - Constitute.” n.d. Www.constituteproject.org. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Cameroon_2008?lang=en. ‌

Canada

The first written source that established the right to education was not the 1867 British North America Act. The first time the right to education was indirectly acknowledged in Canada was in 1871 when the Ontario province instituted Compulsory free schooling. What’s important about the Canadian case was that the British North America Act put educational standards in the hands of each province and territory.

Source: “150 Years of Canadian Education, Part 1: The First 75 Years - 1 Million Teachers.” 2017. July 4, 2017. https://www.1millionteachers.com/150-years-of-canadian-education-part-1-the-first-75-years/. ‌

Cape Verde

After the independence of Cape Verde in 1975, in 1980 the constitution was established where the right to education was acknowledged and described, this was the first written source where the right was mentioned.

Source: “Cape Verde 1980 (Rev. 1992) Constitution - Constitute.” n.d. Www.constituteproject.org. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Cape_Verde_1992?lang=en. ‌

Central African Republic

/ Didn't find this one.

Chad

After the independence of Chad in 1960, the government established a goal of (free) universal primary education, and school attendance was made compulsory until age twelve. This was constitutionalized in the constitution of 1960, this is the first written source where the right of education was acknowledged.

Source:

Glavin, Chris. 2017. “History of Education in Chad | K12 Academics.” Www.k12academics.com. January 25, 2017. https://www.k12academics.com/Education%20Worldwide/Education%20in%20Chad/history-education-chad. ‌ “CHAD_1960 COUNTRY NAME: REPUBLIC of CHAD YEAR: 1960 EVENT TYPE: NEW DATE DRAFTED: NOT SPECIFIED DATE PROMULGATED: 11/28/1960 DATE in FORCE: NOT SPECIFIED DATE of MOST RECENT AMENDMENT: NOT APPLICABLE.” n.d. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://www.icnl.org/wp-content/uploads/Chad_chadcon.pdf. ‌

Chile

/ Didn't find this one.

China

The right of education was established (first written mention) between 1901 and 1905 the Qing court issued a new series of education reform decrees, one of the reforms was implementing a compulsory education program.

Source: “China - History Background.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/269/China-HISTORY-. ‌

Colombia

In 1820 General Santander, as Vice-President, ordered all cities and villas to found primary schools, financed by their own resources. This written executive order was the first time the right to education was stated in Colombia.‌`

Source: María, Teresa, Ramírez, and Irene Salazar. n.d. https://economichistory.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/69/2017/11/ramirezsalazar.pdf. ‌

Comoros

The right to education was constitutionalized in the constitution of 1996. ‘le droit de tout enfant à l'éducation et à l'instruction par l'État et par les parents et les maîtres choisis par eux ainsi que le droit de l'enfant à la protection notamment celui prévu dans les conventions internationales régulièrement ratifiées'. This was the first written mention of the right to education.

Source: “Constitution Des Comores, 1996, Digithèque MJP.” 2022. Univ-Perp.fr. 2022. https://mjp.univ-perp.fr/constit/km1996.htm. ‌

Democratic Republic of the Congo

/ Didn't find this one.

Republic of the Congo

The Constitution (2001, changed in 2015) of Congo’s article 19 ensures the right to education, equal access to education and training, and compulsory universal education until the age of 16. This constitution is the first written mention of the right to education.

Source: “Children of the Republic of Congo - Humanium.” 2012. Humanium. 2012. https://www.humanium.org/en/republic-of-congo/. ‌

Costa Rica

The oldest source that cited the right of education was the constitution of 1869, it made education free, mandatory, and tax supported. This is special because Costa Rica was one of the first countries to do that.

Source: “Costa Rica - Educational System—Overview.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/297/Costa-Rica-EDUCATIONAL-SYSTEM-OVERVIEW.html. ‌

Croatia

In articles 65 & 66, the constitution of Croatia (1990) establishes the right to education. ‘Primary education is free and compulsory, while secondary and higher education are available to everyone under equal conditions and in accordance with their aptitudes’. This the oldest written source of the right to education in Croatia.

Source: “Legislation and Policy | European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education.” n.d. Www.european-Agency.org. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://www.european-agency.org/country-information/croatia/legislation-and-policy. ‌

Cuba

The oldest written source in Cuba about the right to education, is the law of 1842. The first public elementary and secondary were established by the law of 1842, supervision on schools, attendance of children (7-10 years old) became obligatory (if they didn’t get instruction at home).

Source: Turosienski, Severin Kazimierz. 1943. Education in Cuba. Google Books. U.S. Government Print, Office. https://books.google.com/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=VMdGAQAAMAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP12&dq=cuba+education&ots=WdccSAZJ2-&sig=fdCpad-tAM3brECpjTAS7FI65N8#v=onepage&q=cuba%20education&f=false. ‌

Cyprus

After the independence of Cyprus in 1959, the constitution (1960) was made. Article 20 of the constitution describes the right to education. It says, ‘every person has the right to receive and every person or institution has the right to give instruction or education, provided that it will be in accordance with the Republic’s laws.’ This is the first written mention of the right to education in Cyprus.

Source:

Anonymous. 2017. “Cyprus.” Eurydice - European Commission. October 9, 2017. https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/cyprus_en#:~:text=Compulsory%20education%3A%20Compulsory%20education%20lasts. ‌

Czech Republic

The Czech Republic was large part of its history a part of the Austrian Hungarian empire, so we will find the first written mention of the right to education there. Marie Therese, a Habsburg ruler, initiated several educational reforms in 1774. She made a Compulsory education was established in a unified 3-stage schooling system. I think you can see these reforms as executive orders.

Source: Vlčková, Kateřina. n.d. “DEVELOPMENT of the CZECH EDUCATION.” https://is.muni.cz/el/ped/jaro2007/PdZZ_CES/um/CDROM_DevelopmentEducation_EN.pdf. ‌

Denmark

Denmark started a lot of educational reforms in the 1800’s. The first written act (law) that indirectly acknowledged the right to education was the Act of 1814 introducing seven years of compulsory education. More direct was the Danish Constitution from 1849 (section 76) which states that education shall be compulsory (whether provided by the family or school) and free in public institutions.

Source:

“Denmark - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/369/Denmark-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Djibouti

/ Didn't find this one.

Dominica

The constitution of Dominica doesn’t talk about the right to education. The oldest source written where the right to education is mentioned that I can find is the education act of 1997

Source:

“Dominica - Education Act (No. 11 of 1997).” n.d. Www.ilo.org. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/natlex4.detail?p_lang=en&p_isn=48075&p_country=DMA&p_count=211. ‌

Dominican Republic

In 1884, Puerto Rican political activist and educator Eugenio Ma. de Hostos enacted the first educational law, making local authorities responsible for providing and financing primary schools and the newly created normal schools, but entrusting the central government with secondary education. This was the first law that acknowledged the right to education in the Dominican Republic.

Source:

“Dominican Republic - Consititutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/387/Dominican-Republic-CONSITITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

East Timor

The first written source in East Timor that mentions the right to education is its constitution, written in 2002, which states, “The state recognizes and guarantees that every citizen has the right to education and culture, and it is incumbent upon it to promote the establishment of a public system of universal and compulsory basic education that is free of charge in accordance with its possibilities and in conformity with the law” (East Timor Constitution, 2002, Article 59).

Source: East Timor Constitution, 2002, Article 59

Ecuador

There is currently no document that mentions the right to education in Ecuador.

Egypt

The first written source in Egypt that mentions the right to education is the 1971 constitution, which states, “Education is a right guaranteed by the State. It is obligatory in the primary stage and the State shall work to extend obligation to other stages” (Egypt Constitution, 1971, Article 18).

Source: Egypt Constitution, 1971, Article 18

El Salvador

The 1983 constitution of El Salvador is the first written source that mentions the right to education in El Salvador. This document states, “The State shall protect the physical, mental, and moral health of minors, and shall guarantee their right to education and assistance” (El Salvador Constitution, 1983, Article 35).

Source: El Salvador Constitution, 1983, Article 35

Equatorial Guinea

The first written source that discusses the right to education in Equatorial Guinea is their constitution. Written in 1991, the constitution states, “Education is the primordial duty of the State. Every citizen has the right to primary education, which is obligatory, free, and guaranteed” (Equatorial Guinea Constitution, 1991, Article 24).

Source: Equatorial Guinea Constitution, 1991, Article 24

Eritrea

Article 21 of the 1997 constitution of Eritrea is the first written document in the country that mentions the right to education, stating, “Every citizen shall have the right of equal access to publicly funded social services. The state shall endeavor, within the limits of its resources, to make available to all citizens health, education, cultural, and other social services” (Eritrea Constitution, 1997, Article 21).

Source: Eritrea Constitution, 1997, Article 21

Estonia

The 1992 constitution of Estonia is the first written document that mentions the right to education in Estonia. Section 37 states, “Everyone has the right to education” (Estonia Constitution, 1992, Section 37).

Source: Estonia Constitution, 1992, Section 37

Eswatini

The first written source that discusses the right to education in Eswatini is Section 29, entitled “Rights of the Child” of the Eswatini constitution, written in 2005, which states, “Every Swazi child shall within three years of the commencement of this Constitution have the right to free education in public schools at least up to the end of primary school, beginning with the first grade” (Eswatini Constitution, 2005, Section 29).

Source: Eswatini, 2005, Section 29

Ethiopia

The first mention of the right to education in Ethiopia is in the Ethiopian constitution, which states, “To the extent the country’s resources permit, policies shall aim to provide all Ethiopians access to public health and education, clean water, housing, food, and social security” (Ethiopian Constitution, 1995, Article 90).

Source: Ethiopian Constitution, 1995, Article 90

Fiji

The constitution of Fiji is the first written source that mentions the right to education in the country. It states, “1. Every person has the right to- a. early childhood education; b. primary and secondary education; and c. further education” (Fiji Constitution, 2013, Section 31).

Source: Fiji Constitution, 2013, Section 31

Finland

The 1999 constitution of Finland is the first written source in this country that mentions the right to education, stating, “Everyone has the right to basic education free of charge. Provisions on the duty to receive an education are laid down by an Act” (Finland Constitution, 1999, Section 16).

Source: Finland Constitution, 1999, Section 16

France

The first mention of the right to education is in the 1791 French Constitution, which said, “Public instruction for all citizens, free of charge in those branches of education which are indispensable to all men, shall be constituted and organized, and the establishments thereof shall be opportuned gradually, in accordance with the division of the kingdom” (French Constitution, 1791, Title I).

Source: French Constitution, 1791, Title I

Gabon

The constitution of Gabon is the first document in this country that mentions the right to education. It states, “It is the State’s responsibility to organize public education based on religious neutrality, and according to its means, provide it freely to the public; awarding the diploma rests a right of the state” (Gabon Constitution, 1991, Article 1, Section 16).

Source: Gabon Constitution, 1991, Article 1, Section 16

The Gambia

The oldest written source in The Gambia that mentions the right to education is its constitution, which was written in 1996 and states, “All persons shall have the right to equal educational opportunities and facilities and with a view to achieving the full realisation of that right- a. basic education shall be free, compulsory, and available to all” (The Gambia Constitution, 1996, Section 30).

Source: The Gambia Constitution, 1996, Section 30

Georgia

The first mention of the right to education in the country of Georgia is in the constitution, which states, “Everyone shall have the right to education. Freedom of choice in education shall be guaranteed” (Georgia Constitution, 1995, Article 35).

Source: Georgia Constitution, 1995, Article 35

Ghana

Article 25 of the Ghana constitution is the first written mention of the right to education, which states, “All persons shall have the right to equal educational opportunities and facilities and with a view to achieving the full realization of that right- a. basic education shall be free, compulsory, and available to all” (Ghana Constitution, 1992, Section 25).

Source: Ghana Constitution, 1992, Section 25

Greece

The oldest source in Greece that mentions the right to education is the constitution, which states, “All Greeks are entitled to free education on all levels at State educational institutions. The State shall provide financial assistance to those who distinguish themselves, as well as to students in need of assistance or special protection, in accordance with their abilities” (Greek Constitution, 1975, Article 16).

Source: Greek Constitution, 1975, Article 16

Grenada

The Education Act of 1976 in Grenada is the oldest written document in this country that mentions the right to education, “According to the Education Act, public education is free and all children are required to attend school until age 16” (United States Department of Labor, 2015).

Source:

United States Department of Labor, 2015 Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, 2015 https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ILAB/child_labor_reports/tda2015/Grenada.pdf (accessed 07 March 2022)

Guatemala

The earliest source that mentions the right to education in Guatemala is the constitution. Written in 1985, Article 71, entitled “The Right to Education” states, “The freedom of education and educational (docente) criteria is guaranteed. It is the obligation of the State to provide and facilitate education to its inhabitants with any discrimination whatsoever. The foundation and maintenance of cultural education centers and museums is declared to be of public utility and necessity” (Guatemala Constitution, 1985, Article 71).

Source: Guatemala Constitution, 1985, Article 71

Guinea

There has been no written source in Guinea that mentions the right to education.

Guinea-Bissau

The earliest mention of the right to education in Guinea-Bissau is the constitution, which states, “All citizens have the right and duty to education” (Guinea-Bissau Constitution, 1984, Article 49).

Source: Guinea-Bissau Constitution, 1984, Article 49

Guyana

The first mention of the right to education in Guyana is their constitution. The constitution says, “Every citizen has the right to free education from nursery to university as well as at non-formal places where opportunities are provided for education and training” (Guyana Constitution, 1980, Article 20).

Source: Guyana Constitution, 1980, Article 20

Haiti

The first written source that mentioned the right to education was the constitution of 1805. The constitution stated that “education shall be free, and that primary education shall be compulsory”. A little sidenote: only in 1987 the declaration that education shall be a right for every citizen was added to the Constitution.

Source: Glavin, Chris. 2017. “History of Education in Haiti | K12 Academics.” Www.k12academics.com. February 6, 2017. https://www.k12academics.com/Education%20Worldwide/Education%20in%20Haiti/history-education-haiti. ‌

Honduras

The first official written source that acknowledged the right to education, is the 1982 Honduran constitution. Articles 151 to 171 of the constitution are related to education. In constitution is stated that primary education is free and obligatory.

Source: “Honduras - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/606/Honduras-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Hungary

The first official law that acknowledged the right to education, is the act of 1868. With this act József Eötvös, Minister of religion and public education extensively modernized the Hungarian education system. The act of 1868 stated that children aged 6 to 15 were obliged to attend school and it modernized the content of education and established the supervision of schools by the state.

Source: “Embassy of Hungary Pristina.” n.d. Pristina.mfa.gov.hu. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://pristina.mfa.gov.hu/eng/page/short-history-of-hungarian-education-system. ‌

Iceland

The first official law that acknowledged the right to education, is the act of 1907. This was the first major education bill; it established the basic educational objectives and educational policies. With this act, education in Iceland became compulsory and free for all children between 10 and 14.

Source: “Iceland - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/639/Iceland-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

India

We can discuss two laws regarding the right to education, an official and non-official one. The non-official was the Constitution of India Bill 1895, also referred to as Swaraj Bill. It was written during the emergence of Indian nationalism and increasingly vocal demands by Indians for self-government - albeit within the British Empire. Articles 25 and 26 state that state education will be free, and that primary education will be compulsory. I call this unofficial because it was never implemented. The official law is the Indian constitution of 1948. Article 45 of the Directive Principle mandates that "the State shall endeavor to provide within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years.”

Sources: “Constitution of India.” 2017. Constitutionofindia.net. 2017. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/historical_constitutions/the_constitution_of_india_bill__unknown__1895__1st%20January%201895.

‌“India - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/650/India-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Indonesia

The first official law that acknowledged the right to education, is the 1945 State Constitution. Article 31 of this constitution states that Every citizen has a right to obtain an education and that the government shall create and execute a system of national education provided by law." The National Education Law No. 2/1989 provides the foundation for one national education system to be universally implemented in a complete and totally integrated manner.

Source: “Indonesia - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/661/Indonesia-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Iran

The first official law that acknowledged the right to education, is the constitution of 1979. In Article 3, the constitution of 1979 establishes the goal of "free education and physical training for everyone at all levels, and the facilitation and expansion of higher education." Additionally, article 30 requires that the government "provide all citizen with free education up to secondary school," and "expand free higher education to the extent required by the country for attaining self-sufficiency."

Source: “Iran - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/672/Iran-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Iraq

The first official law that acknowledged the right to education is the General Education Law of 1940. The law states that primary education is compulsory and universally guaranteed to the Iraqi people.

Source: “Iraq - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/683/Iraq-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Republic of Ireland

The first official law that acknowledged the right to education is the 1937 constitution of Ireland. The right of the education is one of the rights guaranteed in the constitution. The constitution acknowledges the responsibility of the nation to work with parents to entitle children to receive an education without cost to the family.

Source: “Ireland - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/694/Ireland-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Israel

The first official law that acknowledged the right to education, is the Compulsory Education Law (1949). According to this law, compulsory education applies to all children between the ages of 3 and 15 (grade 10) inclusive. This education is provided free of charge throughout the entire system from age 5. In addition, the law provides for free education for adolescents aged 16 and 17, as well as for 18-year-olds who did not complete their schooling in grade 11 in accordance with the curriculum. The state is responsible for providing free compulsory education under this law.

Source: “Principal Laws Relating to Education in Israel.” n.d. Www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/principal-laws-relating-to-education-in-israel. ‌

Italy

The first official law that acknowledged the right to education, is the Legge Casati (Casati Law) (1859). It established the provisions for the organization of state education. The law included five sets of regulations dealing with higher education, upper secondary classical education, technical education, primary education, and normal schools (for elementary teacher preparation).

Source: “Italy - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/715/Italy-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Ivory Coast

The first official law that acknowledged the right to education, is the Loi de Réforme No. 696. This document spelled out the fundamental principles behind the government's educational policies and outlined strategic planning and curricular developments for all educational levels.

Source: “Côte d’Ivoire - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/307/C-te-d-Ivoire-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Jamaica

The first official law that acknowledged the right to education in Jamaica, is the constitution of 1962. It guarantees among other free education.

Source: “Jamaica - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/726/Jamaica-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Japan

The first official law that acknowledged the right to education in Japan, is the ‘new’ constitution of Japan (1947).The Constitution specifically addressed the rights of children to be educated. Article 26 reads as follows: “All people shall have the right to receive an equal education correspondent to their ability, as provided by law. All people shall be obligated to have all boys and girls under their protection receive ordinary educations as provided for by law. Such compulsory education shall be free.”

Source: “Japan - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/737/Japan-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Jordan

When Jordan became an independent entity in 1946 a new constitution was written. Article 21 stated that "communities should have the right to establish and maintain their schools for the teaching of their own members, provided they conform to the general requirements prescribed by law." When the constitution was revised in 1952, Article 20 proclaimed that primary education was to be compulsory and free in the public schools and open to all nationals.

Source: “Jordan - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/749/Jordan-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Kazakhstan

The first official law that acknowledged the right to education in Kazakhstan, is the constitution of 1995. The country remains dedicated to providing its citizens free public education compulsory through the eleventh grade. The constitution states, "The citizens shall be guaranteed free secondary education in state educational establishments. Secondary education shall be obligatory" (Article 30).

Source: “Kazakhstan - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/760/Kazakhstan-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Kenya

The first official law that acknowledged the right to education in Kenya, is the constitution of 1962.

Source: “Kenya Law: The Constitution of Kenya.” 2019. Kenyalaw.org. 2019. http://kenyalaw.org/kl/index.php?id=398. ‌

Kiribati

//

Kuwait

In the constitution of Kuwait, in line with the Islamic principles of societal governance as decreed by the Quran, the state is seen as holding the responsibility for educating and protecting the Kuwaiti youth. Article 10 summarizes the protective duties of the state with regard to morals, physical well-being, and spiritual well being: "The State cares for the young and protects them from exploitation and from moral, physical, and spiritual neglect." Articles 13 and 14 specifically state the government's commitment to provide education, and to promote the arts and sciences. Article 13 states that "education is a fundamental requisite for the progress of society, assured and promoted by the State." Article 14 continues by saying that "the State shall promote science, letters, and the arts and encourage scientific research therein."

Source: “Kuwait - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/783/Kuwait-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Kyrgyzstan

Universal free education in Kyrgyzstan was first enshrined in the USSR constitution in the 1970s. It provided for state-subsidized education for all with the goal of 100 percent literacy. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the government wrote and adopted on the 12 May 1993 a constitution for the new nation. Article 32 in the constitution reads: Every citizen of the Kyrgyz Republic shall have the right to an education. General secondary education shall be compulsory and free of charge, and everyone shall be entitled to receive it in the state educational institutions. The state shall provide for the vocational, special secondary, and higher education for every person in accordance with individual aptitude. Paid education for citizens at national and other educational institutions shall be allowed on the basis of and in the procedure established by the legislation. The state shall exercise control over the activity of educational institutions.

Source: “Kyrgyzstan - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/794/Kyrgyzstan-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Laos

The first constitution (written source) that talked about education is the current constitution of 1991, which was amended in 2003. In article 22 is stated that “The State attends to developing education and implements compulsory primary education in order to build good citizens with revolutionary competence, knowledge and abilities”.

Source: “Lao People’s Democratic Republic’s Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2003.” n.d. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Laos_2003.pdf?lang=en. ‌

Latvia

The Law of Education was adopted in 1991, the first written source about education. It provides the main principles, goals, and features for reform in education. According to this law, Latvian residents have the right to an education.

Source: “Latvia - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/816/Latvia-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Lebanon

The right to education was first cited in the constitution. This constitution was made and adopted in 1926, but Lebanon became only independent in 1946. The constitution was amended a few times in the country’s history. In article 10 of the constitution, it is stated that there is a right to free education.

Sources: “Lebanon - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/826/Lebanon-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Lesotho

The right to education was first cited clearly in the constitution. The constitution that was 1993 was amended a few times in the country’s recent history. In article 22, the Lesotho state Lesotho shall endeavor to make education available to all and shall adopt policies aimed at securing that – (a) education is directed to the full development of the human personality and sense of dignity and strengthening the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; (b) primary education is compulsory and available to all; (c) secondary education, including technical and vocational education, is made generally available and accessible to all by every appropriate means, and in particular, by the progressive introduction of free education; (d) higher education is made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular, by the progressive introduction of free education; and (e) fundamental education is encouraged or intensified as far as possible for those persons who have not received or completed their primary education.

Source: “CHAPTER I: THE KINGDOM and ITS CONSTITUTION.” n.d. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://www.aripo.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Constitution-of-Lesotho.pdf. ‌

Liberia

Liberia’s constitution guarantees equal access to educational opportunities and facilities for all citizens, and Liberia has ratified the key regional and international conventions protecting the right to education. However, Liberia has not signed any of the instruments allowing individual complaints for human rights abuses at the international level, and its domestic law, in particular the constitution, does not directly incorporate international human rights law, which means that there are little means to complaint about the right to education in Liberia. Liberia has developed a number of key national policy documents on education. While the Education Law 2002 calls for free and compulsory primary education, the Education Reform Act 2011 establishes free compulsory primary education and free compulsory basic education for Liberian citizens.

Source: Right-to-education.org. 2022. [online] Available at: <https://www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resource-attachments/RTE_Country_Factsheet_Liberia_2012.pdf> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

Libya

The 1969 constitution decreed compulsory free education through the ninth grade. It mandated adult education and began providing more opportunities for women to become educated. This same constitution stated education's aims. Article 28 states that every Libyan shall have the right to an education.

Source: “Libya - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/856/Libya-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Liechtenstein

Compulsory education (so in a sense the right to education) was mandated in 1805. The responsibility for school construction and financing was given to the municipalities resulting in lack of enforcement and unequal educational opportunities for the principality's residents.

Source: “Liechtenstein - History Background.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/866/Liechtenstein-HISTORY-BACKGROUND.html. ‌

Lithuania

The right to education in Lithuania is for the first time formalized in the constitution of 1992 (after its re-independence of the Soviet-Union). In article 41 of the constitution it is stated that there is compulsory education, free education and access to higher education.

Source: Constituteproject.org. 2022. [online] Available at: <https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Lithuania_2006.pdf> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

Luxembourg

The right to education is stated in the constitution of 1868. It is stated in Article Twenty-Three of the Constitution is the right that education be compulsory and provided free of charge by the state. The Constitution further stipulates that the state must organize free vocational training courses, secondary educational establishments, and the necessary courses in higher education

Source: “Luxembourg - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/882/Luxembourg-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html.

‌“Luxembourg 1868 (Rev. 2009) Constitution - Constitute.” n.d. Www.constituteproject.org. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Luxembourg_2009?lang=en. ‌

Madagascar

The current constitution of 2010 enshrines the right of education in Madagascar. Article 24 of the constitution states: “The State organizes a public education, gratuitous and accessible to all. Primary education is obligatory for all.”.

Source: Constituteproject.org. 2022. [online] Available at: <https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Madagascar_2010.pdf?lang=en> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

Malawi

The 1966 Malawi Constitution does not specifically mention education. The first time the right to education was mentioned was when the Malawi Congress Party, was committed to "see that all children who go to Primary School finish their primary education without let or hindrance." In other words, in Malawi, education is a privilege granted to students, but it is not a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Source: “Malawi - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/913/Malawi-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Malaysia

The constitution of Malaysia is vague about the right to education, and only mentions the right to access to higher education. The right of every child to free and compulsory primary education is reiterated in Article 28 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child which Malaysia had acceded on 17 February 1997. However, the Government of Malaysia has reservation on this Article when adopting the Convention. This seems to contradict the spirit of universalizing and promoting equity which is Article 3 of the Declaration on Education for All which Malaysia is a signatory. In 2002, Malaysia amended the Education Act 1966 (Act 550) to make 6 years of primary education compulsory for all children of Malaysian citizens who are of ages 6-12 years. You could say that this is the first law that mentioned the right to education.

Source: Constituteproject.org. 2022. [online] Available at: <https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Malaysia_2007.pdf?lang=en , http://www.suhakam.org.my/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Research-Report.pdf> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

Maldives

After many different constitutions during the last 100 years, the Maldives ended (for now) with the constitution of 2008. In the constitution’s article 36a, the right to education is stated: “Everyone has the right to education without discrimination of any kind.”.

Source: Constituteproject.org. 2022. [online] Available at: <https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Maldives_2008.pdf?lang=en> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

Mali

When Mali became independent in 1960, universal primary education became a goal of the government, and the right to education was written into the Constitution. Every child was guaranteed a free education regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic status, or origin. The law also required that the government build schools and provide teachers and teaching materials.

Source: “Mali - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/943/Mali-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Malta

The constitution of 1964 of Malta, after it became independent, mentions the right to education. Article 10 of constitution states: “Primary education shall be compulsory and in State schools shall be free of charge.”.

Source: Constituteproject.org. 2022. [online] Available at: <https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Malta_2016.pdf?lang=en> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

Marshall Islands

The right to education is enshrined in the constitution of 1979. Section 15 of the constitution states that “The Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands recognizes the right of the people to health care, education, and legal services and the obligation to take every step reasonable and necessary to provide these services.”.

Source: Constituteproject.org. 2022. [online] Available at: <https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Marshall_Islands_1995.pdf?lang=en> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

Mauritania

The constitution of Mauritania doesn’t mention the right to education. It is worth noting that education is free in Mauritania and that, in 2000, the government promulgated a law making primary education compulsory, thereby guaranteeing all Mauritanian children, whatever their situation and social status (orphans, poor) a normal education. You could see those laws as the first who mentioned the right to education.

Source: “Memorandum on the Progress Achieved by Mauritania in Girls’ Education Nebghouha Mint Mohamed Vall Associate Director, HKA Consulting 1. Context.” n.d. Accessed April 11, 2022. http://cdf.convio.net/site/DocServer/Mauritania_by_Neb_Vall-English.pdf?docID=2447. ‌

Mauritius

The right to education isn’t constitutionalized in Mauritius. However, Mauritius adheres some international law and resolutions about education like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which asserts that “everyone has the right to education”. Mauritius has made it compulsory for children aged between 5 years up to 16 years old to have access to mandatory education. The Republic of Mauritius has also advocated for access to education. Primary education became free for Mauritius in the 1940s and Secondary Education became free for all students in late 1970s. The government of Mauritius in 2019 has introduced free Tertiary Education to all students who want to pursue higher studies from a public university.

Source: Group, Temple. 2020. “Lets Talk about EDUCATION !” Temple Group | Mauritius. February 18, 2020. http://templegroup.mu/lets-talk-about-education/. ‌

Mexico

The constitution of 1917 was the first time the right of education was established in Mexico. Title One, Chapter One, Article Three of the Constitution of Mexico outlines the Mexican educational philosophy. Section IV states that all education provided by the State shall be free. Article Three, Clause Three, provides for compulsory (primary and secondary) education for all Mexican citizens.

Source: “Mexico - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/980/Mexico-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Federated States of Micronesia

In the constitution of 1978, the right to education is for the first time established in the Federated States of Micronesia. The national government of the Federated States of Micronesia recognizes the right of the people to education and shall take every step reasonable and necessary to provide this service.

Source: “Micronesia (Federated States Of) 1978 (Rev. 1990) Constitution - Constitute.” n.d. Www.constituteproject.org. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Micronesia_1990?lang=en. ‌

Moldova

In the constitution of 1996 of the new independent state of Moldova, the right to education is established. In article 35 the right to education is discussed: 1. The right to education shall be put into effect by the compulsory comprehensive school system, lyceum education (secondary school) and vocational training, as well as the higher education system, and other forms of instruction and knowledge improvement. 2. The State shall ensure, under the law, the right of anyone to choose the language in which the teaching and training are to be performed. 3. The study of the official language shall be ensured within all types of educational institutions. 4. The state education system shall be free.

Source: Constituteproject.org. 2022. [online] Available at: <https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Moldova_2006.pdf> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

Monaco

In Monaco’s constitution of 1962 the right to education is established. In article 27 is stated that ‘Monegasques are entitled to free primary and secondary education’.

Source: Constituteproject.org. 2022. [online] Available at: <https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Monaco_2002.pdf?lang=en> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

Mongolia

The constitution of 1992 made the first mention of the right to education. In article 16, number 7: “The right to learn and education. The State shall provide universal general education free of charge. Citizens may establish and operate private schools, which meet the requirements of the State”.

Source: Constituteproject.org. 2022. [online] Available at: <https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mongolia_2001.pdf?lang=en> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

Montenegro

The constitution of 2007 enforced the right to education in the new independent state of Montenegro. Article 75 talks about education, the following aspects are stated: The right to education under same conditions shall be guaranteed, elementary education shall be obligatory and free of charge, and the autonomy of universities, higher education and scientific institutions shall be guaranteed.

Constituteproject.org. 2022. [online] Available at: <https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Montenegro_2013.pdf?lang=en> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

Morocco

In article 31 of the constitution of 2011, the right to education was stated. The State, the public establishments and the territorial collectivities work for the mobilization of all the means available [disponibles] to facilitate the equal access of the citizens [feminine] and the citizens [masculine] to conditions that permit their enjoyment of the right: a modern, accessible education of quality; to education concerning attachment to the Moroccan identity and to the immutable national constants; to professional instruction and to physical and artistic education.

Source: Constituteproject.org. 2022. [online] Available at: <https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Morocco_2011.pdf> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

Mozambique

The constitution of 2004 enforced the right to education in the independent state of Mozambique. Article 88 talks about the right to education: Firstly, in the Republic of Mozambique, education shall be a right and a duty of all citizens. Secondly, in the state shall promote the extension of education to professional and continuing vocational training, as well as equal access to the enjoyment of this right by all citizens.

Source: “Mozambique 2004 (Rev. 2007) Constitution - Constitute.” n.d. Www.constituteproject.org. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mozambique_2007?lang=en. ‌

Myanmar

The constitution of 1947 doesn’t really mention the right to education, only in a vague way. The following constitution of 1974 mentions the right of education. Article 152 states that every citizen has the right to education.

Source: “Constitution of 1974 - Myanmar Law Library.” n.d. Www.myanmar-Law-Library.org. Accessed April 11, 2022. http://www.myanmar-law-library.org/law-library/laws-and-regulations/constitutions/1974-constitution.html. ‌

Namibia

The first mention of the right to education in Namibia is in the constitution, written in 1990, which states in Article 20, “All persons shall have the right to education” (Namibia Constitution, 1990, Article 20).

Source: Namibia Constitution, 1990, Article 20

Nauru

The Education Act of 2011 in Nauru is the first mention of the right to education in this country. It states, “every child has the right to education” (Education Act 2011, 2011, 7).

Source: Education Act 2011, 2011, page 7

Nepal

The 2015 constitution of Nepal is the first mention of the right to education in Nepal. It states, “Every citizen shall have the right to access basic education” (Nepal Constitution, 2015, Article 31).

Source: Nepal Constitution, 2015, Article 31

Kingdom of the Netherlands

The first document in the Netherlands that mentions the right to education is the Compulsory Education Act of 1969. This act makes education compulsory for all children in the Netherlands, stating “The person who exercises authority over a young person, and the person who has taken charge of the actual care of a young person, are obliged, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, to ensure that the young person is registered as a pupil at a school and that this school is regulated after registrations” (Compulsory Education Act of 1969, 1969, Article 2).

Source: Compulsory Education Act of 1969, 1969, Article 2

New Zealand

The first document that mentions the right to education in New Zealand is is the Education Act 1989 which states, in Section 3, that “Except as provided in in this Act, every person who is not an international student is entitled to free enrollment and free education at any State school during the period beginning on the person’s fifth birthday and ending on 1 January after the person’s 19th birthday” (Education Act 1989, 1989, Section 3).

Source: Education Act 1989, 1989, Section 3

Nicaragua

The first mention of the right to education in Nicaragua is in its constitution, which states in Article 58, “Nicarguans have the right to education and culture” (Nicaragua Constitution, 1987, Article 58).

Source: Nicaragua Constitution, 1987, Article 58

Niger

The earliest document that mentions the right to education in Niger is its constitution, which states, “Each one has the right to life, to health, to physical and moral integrity, to a healthy and sufficient food supply [alimentation], to potable water, to education and instruction in the conditions specified by the law” (Niger Constitution, 2010, Article 12).

Source: Niger Constitution, 2010, Article 12

Nigeria

The first mention of the right to education in Nigeria is in their constitution, which states, “Government shall strive to eradicate illiteracy; and to this end Government shall as and when practicable provide (a) free, compulsory and universal primary education” (Nigeria Constitution, 1999, Chapter II Section 18).

Source: Nigeria Constitution, 1999, Chapter II Section 18

North Korea

In North Korea, the oldest written source that mentions the right to education is their constitution, which states, “Citizens of the D.P.R.K. have the right to education. Elementary education is universal and compulsory” (North Korea Constitution, 1971, Article 18).

Source: North Korea Constitution, 1971, Article 18

North Macedonia

The Constitution of North Macedonia is the oldest document in the country that mentions the right to education, stating, “Everyone has a right to education. Education is accessible to everyone under equal conditions. Primary education is compulsory and free” (North Macedonia Constitution, 1991, Article 44).

Source: North Macedonia Constitution, 1991, Article 44

Norway

The first mention of the right to education in Norway is in Article 109 of their constitution, which states, “Everyone has the right to education. Children have the right to receive basic education. The education shall preserve the individual’s abilities and needs, and further their respect for democracy, rule of law and human rights” (Norway Constitution, 1814, Article 109).

Source: Norway Constitution, 1814, Article 109

Oman

The first mention of the right to education in Oman is in Article 13 of the constitution, which states, “Education is a cornerstone for the progress of the Society which the State fosters and endeavors to disseminate and make accessible to all” (Oman Constitution, 1996, Article 13).

Source: Oman Constitution, 1996, Article 13

Pakistan

The first mention of the right to education in Pakistan did not come until 2010, when, “On April 19th 2010, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan guaranteed Free and Compulsory education for all 5-16 year olds as a Fundamental Right via Article 25 A” (Taimur, 2017).

Source:

Sadaf Taimur, “Article 25-A, Transition from Law to Implementation- 7 Years Down the Road, where do we stand?” 2017, The Right to Education Pakistan https://rtepakistan.org/blog/2017/04/24/article-25-a-transition-from-law-to-implementation-7-years-down-the-road-where-do-we-stand/ (accessed 18 March 2022).

Palau

The first mention of the right to education in Palau is in the constitution. In Article VI, it says, “The national government shall take positive action to attain these national objectives and implement these national policies… provision of public education for citizens which shall be free and compulsory as prescribed by law” (Palau Constitution, 1981, Article VI).

Source: Palau Constitution, 1981, Article VI

Panama

Article 56 of the Panama constitution guarantees the right to education, stating “The State shall protect the physical, mental, and moral health of minors and shall guarantee their rights to support, health, education, and social security. In an equal manner, the elderly and the sick who are destitute shall have the right to this protection” (Panama Constitution, 1972, Article 56).

Source: Panama Constitution, 1972, Article 56

Papua New Guinea

There is currently no right to education in Papua New Guinea.

Paraguay

According to the 1992 constitution of Paraguay, “All persons have [the] right to [a] complete and permanent education, which [,] as a system and [a] process [,] is accomplished within the context of the culture of the community” (Paraguay Constitution, 1992, Article 73).

Source: Paraguay Constitution, 1992, Article 73

Peru

Article 6 of the Peru Constitution states, “The national population policy aims to spread and promote responsible parenthood. It recognizes the right of families and individuals to decide. In this spirit, the State guarantees suitable education and information programs and access to such means, provided they do not harm life or health” (Peru Constitution, 1993, Article 6).

Source: Peru Constitution, 1993, Article 6

Philippines

The Philippines constitution is the earliest mention of the right to education, stating, “The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all” (Philippines Constitution, 1987, Article XIV).

Source: Philippines Constitution, 1987, Article XIV

Poland

The 1997 version of Poland’s constitution is the first mention of the right to education in Poland, stating, “Everyone shall have the right to education. Education to 18 years of age shall be compulsory. The manner of fulfillment of schooling obligations shall be specified by statute” (Poland Constitution, 1997, Article 70).

Source: Poland Constitution, 1997, Article 70

Portugal

The first mention of the right to education in Portugal is in their constitution, which states, “The freedom to learn and to teach shall be guaranteed” (Portugal Constitution, 1976, Article 43).

Source: Portugal Constitution, 1976, Article 43

Qatar

The first mention of the right to education in Qatar is in its constitution, which states, “Education is a right to every citizen. The State endeavors to achieve compulsory and free public education, according to the rules and laws in force in the State” (Qatar Constitution, 2003, Article 49).

Source: Qatar Constitution, 2003, Article 49

Romania

The first time the right to education is mentioned in Romania is in the constitution, which says, “The right to education is ensured through compulsory general education, high school and vocational education, higher education, and other forms of instruction and advanced training” (Romanian Constitution, 1991, Article 32).

Source: Romanian Constitution, 1991, Article 32

Russia

Article 43 of the Russian constitution is the first mention of the right to education in Russia, stating “Everyone shall have the right to education” (Russian Constitution, 1993, Article 43).

Source: Russian Constitution, 1993, Article 43

Rwanda

The first mention of the right to education in Rwanda is in the constitution, which says, “Every Rwandan has the right to education” (Rwandan Constitution, 2003, Article 20).

Source: Rawandan Constitution, 2003, Article 20

Saint Kitts and Nevis

The first mentions of the right to education in Saint Kitts and Nevis is in the Education Act of 2005, which says “Subject to available resources, all persons are entitled to receive an educational programme appropriate to their needs in accordance with the provisions of this Act” (Education Act of 2005, 2005, 12).

Source: Education Act of 2005, 2005, page 12

Saint Lucia

The Education Act of 1999 is the first mention of the right to education in Saint Lucia. This Act states, “Subject to available resources, all persons are entitled to receive an educational programme appropriate to their needs in accordance with this Act” (Education Act of 1999, 1999, 22).

Source: Education Act 1999, 1999, page 22

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

The first document that mentions the right to education in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is the Education Bill of 2005. This bill states under the section “Division 1 Students’ Rights and Responsibilities” that one of the rights of the students is the “right to education” (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Education Bill 2005, 2005, 2).

Source: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Education Bill 2005, 2005, page 2

Samoa

There is currently no mention of the right to education in Samoa.

San Marino

There is currently no mention of the right to education in the country of San Marino.

São Tomé and Príncipe

The São Tomé and Príncipe constitution is the first mention of the right to education in the country. Article 55 of the constitution states, “Education, as a right recognized to all the citizens, strives for the whole formation of man and his active participation in the community” (São Tomé and Príncipe Constitution, 1975, Article 55).

Source: São Tomé and Príncipe Constitution, 1975, Article 55

Saudi Arabia

The oldest source that mentions the right to education in Saudi Arabia is the constitution, which states, “The State shall provide public education and shall commit itself to the eradication of illiteracy” (Saudi Arabia Constitution, 1992, Article 30).

Source: Saudi Arabia Constitution, 1992, Article 30

Senegal

The first document that mentions the right to education in Senegal is the constitution, which states, “The Republic of Senegal guarantees to all citizens the fundamental individual freedoms, the economic and social rights as well as the collective rights. These freedoms and rights are notably: … the right to education” (Senegal Constitution, 2001, Article 8).

Source: Senegal Constitution, 2001, Article 8

Serbia

The oldest document in Serbia that mentions the right to education is their constitution. Article 71 of their constitution states, “Everyone shall have the right to education. Primary education is mandatory and free, whereas secondary education is free. All citizens shall have access under equal conditions to higher education” (Serbia Constitution, 2006, Article 71).

Source: Serbia Constitution, 2006, Article 71

Seychelles

The constitution of Seychelles is the first mention of the right to education, stating, “The State recognises the right of every citizen to education” (Seychelles Constitution, 1993, Section 33).

Source: Seychelles Constitution, 1993, Section 33

Sierra Leone

The first mention of the right to education in Sierra Leone is in their constitution, which states “The Government shall direct its policies towards ensuring that there are equal rights and adequate educational opportunities for all citizens at all levels” (Sierra Leone Constitution, 1991, Section 9).

Source: Sierra Leone Constitution, 1991, Section 9

Singapore

There is currently no mention of the right to education in Singapore.

Slovakia

The constitution of Slovakia is the first document that mentions the right to education in this country, which states “Every person shall have the right to education. School attendance is compulsory. Length of attendance shall be fixed by law” (Slovakia Constitution, 1992, Article 42).

Source: Slovakia Constitution, 1992, Article 42

Slovenia

The first document that mentions the right to education in Slovenia is the constitution, stating “Freedom of education shall be guaranteed. Primary education is compulsory and shall be financed from public funds. The state shall create the opportunities for citizens to obtain a proper education” (Slovenia Constitution, 1991, Article 57).

Source: Slovenia Constitution, 1991, Article 57

Solomon Islands

There is currently no mention of the right to education in the Solomon Islands.

Somalia

The constitution of Somalia is the first document that mentions the right to education, stating “Education is a basic right for all Somali citizens” (Somalia Constitution, 2012, Article 30).

Source: Somalia Constitution, 2012, Article 30

South Africa

Article 29 of the constitution of South Africa is the first written document in the country mentioning the right to education, stating “Everyone has the right- a. to a basic education, including adult basic education; and b. to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible” (South Africa Constitution, 1996, Section 29).

Source: South Africa Constitution, 1996, Section 29

South Korea

Article 31 of the constitution of South Korea is the first mention of the right to education in the country, stating “All citizens shall have an equal right to an education corresponding to their abilities” (South Korea Constitution, 1948, Article 31).

Source: South Korea Constitution, 1948, Article 31

South Sudan

The South Sudan constitution of 2011 is the first document in this country that mentions the right to education. It says, “Education is a right for every citizen and all levels of government shall provide access to education without discrimination as to religion, race, ethnicity, health status including HIV/AIDS, gender or disability” (South Sudan Constitution, 2011, Article 29).

Source: South Sudan Constitution, 2011, Article 29

Spain

The first mention of the right to education in Spain comes in its constitution, which says “. Everyone has the right to education. Freedom of teaching is recognized” (Spain Constitution, 1978, Section 27).

Source: Spain Constitution, 1978, Section 27

Sri Lanka

The earliest mention of the right to education in Sri Lanka is in the constitution, which says “the complete eradication of illiteracy and the assurance to all persons of the right to universal and equal access to education at all levels” (Sri Lanka Constitution, 1978, Section 27).

Source: Sri Lanka Constitution, 1978, Section 27

Sudan

The constitution is the first document in Sudan that mentions the right to education, stating “Education is a right for every citizen. The state guarantees access thereto without discrimination on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, gender or disability” (Sudan Constitution, 2019, Section 62).

Source: Sudan Constitution, 2019, Section 62

Suriname

The earliest mention of the right to education in Suriname is the constitution, which states “Everyone shall have the right to education and cultural expression” (Suriname Constitution, 1987, Article 38).

Source: Suriname Constitution, 1987, Article 38

Sweden

The constitution of Sweden is the earliest mention of the right to education in the country, stating “All children covered by compulsory schooling shall be entitled to a free basic education in the public education system. The public institutions shall be responsible also for the provision of higher education” (Sweden Constitution, 1974, Article 18).

Source: Sweden Constitution, 1974, Article 18

Switzerland

The earliest document that mentions the right to education in Switzerland is the constitution, which says “The right to an adequate and free basic education is guaranteed” (Switzerland Constitution, 1999, Article 19).

Source: Switzerland Constitution, 1999, Article 19

Syria

The earliest mention of the right to education in Syria is in the constitution. Article 29 says “Education shall be a right guaranteed by the state, and it is free at all levels. The law shall regulate the cases where education could not be free at universities and government institutes” (Syria Constitution, 2012, Article 29).

Source: Syria Constitution, 2012, Article 29

Tajikistan

Immediately after the civil war (1992-1997), the government approved a law that made education a right for all. However, this right is yet to be implemented.

According to the Constitution (Article 41) and the law "About Education" (Article 12) all children must complete nine years of classes of basic education. The state also guarantees free entry into state educational institutions, general secondary education (11 classes), secondary professional and vocational education (according to abilities and on a competitive basis), secondary special, and higher education.

Article 41 Compulsory education Everyone has the right to education. General basic education is compulsory. The State guarantees general basic compulsory education free-of-charge in the State educational institutions. Access to higher education Everyone within the framework determined by law may receive free-of-charge general secondary, basic vocational, secondary vocational, and higher vocational education in the State educational institutions.

Sources: “Tajikistan 1994 (Rev. 2016) Constitution - Constitute.” n.d. Www.constituteproject.org. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Tajikistan_2016?lang=en.

‌“Tajikistan - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1504/Tajikistan-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Tanzania

The current Tanzanian Constitution only recognises the right to education as a fundamental objective and directive principle of State policy rather than as a human right, which means that it is not enforceable by any court. However, Tanzania is currently reviewing its Constitution and the proposed draft Constitution enshrines the right to education as a human right. If adopted, the new Constitution will substantially improve the legal protection of the right to education of Tanzanian citizens. The National Education Act (1978) is Tanzania’s primary law on education and is currently under review.

Source: “UNITED REPUBLIC of TANZANIA.” n.d. https://www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resource-attachments/RTE_Country_Facsheet_Tanzania_January_2015.pdf. ‌

Thailand

In Section 54 of the constitution of 2017 was stated that: ‘The State shall ensure that every child receives quality education for twelve years from pre-school to the completion of compulsory education free of charge.’.

Source: Constituteproject.org. 2022. [online] Available at: <https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Thailand_2017.pdf?lang=en> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

Togo

The constitution of 1992 provided the right to education. Article 35 The State recognizes the right to education of children and creates conditions favorable to accomplish this objective. School is obligatory for children of the two sexes until the age of 15 years. The State assures progressively the gratuity of public education.

Source: “Togo’s Constitution of 1992 with Amendments through 2007.” n.d. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Togo_2007.pdf?lang=en. ‌

Tonga

In 1876 the first Act of Parliament was passed regulating education in Tonga and it made education comulsory for all children from 7 – 16. This was the first written mention of the right to education.

Source: “Issues in Tongan Education | NZETC.” n.d. Nzetc.victoria.ac.nz. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-BreHowt-b2.html. ‌

Trinidad and Tobago

In 1895, a Commission was appointed to investigate free and compulsory education in the primary schools. It recommended that primary education be offered free of charge, and that it be compulsory for children aged 6 to 10. This was the first mentioning of the right to education.

Source: “Cp 3.” 2019. Educoas.org. 2019. http://www.educoas.org/Portal/bdigital/contenido/interamer/BkIACD/Interamer/Interamerhtml/Alleynehtml/AllCh3.htm. ‌

Tunisia

The right to education is institutionalized in the constitution of 2014. Article 39 states that: “Education shall be mandatory up to the age of sixteen years. The state guarantees the right to free public education at all levels and ensures provisions of the necessary resources to achieve a high quality of education, teaching, and training. It shall also work to consolidate the Arab-Muslim identity and national belonging in the young generations, and to strengthen, promote and generalize the use of the Arabic language and to openness to foreign languages, human civilizations and diffusion of the culture of human rights.”

Source: “Constituteproject.org.” 2014. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Tunisia_2014.pdf. ‌

Turkey

According to Article 42 of the Constitution (1921, revised numerous times), everyone has the right to receive an education. Depending upon individuals' interests and capabilities, they are guided through various programs and schools. The Education Integrity Law of March 3, 1924, made the Ministry of National Education responsible for all educational institutions and all educational training.

Sources: Constituteproject.org. 2022. [online] Available at: <https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Turkey_2017.pdf?lang=en> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1561/Turkey-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html

Turkmenistan

The right to education is institutionalized in the constitution of 2008 (rev. 2016). Article 55 states that: Every citizen shall have the right to education. General secondary education shall be compulsory; everyone shall be entitled to receive it in public educational institutions free of charge. The state shall ensure availability of vocational education for each person according to their abilities. On the basis and in the manner prescribed by law, governmental and non-governmental organizations, citizens shall have the right to engage in paid work activity. Mandatory state educational standards are set for all educational institutions.

Source: Constituteproject.org. 2022. [online] Available at: <https://constituteproject.org/constitution/Turkmenistan_2016.pdf?lang=en> [Accessed 11 April 2022].

Tuvalu

The first mention of the right to education in Tuvalu after its independence (1978) is the education act (1978), which was revised in 2008. It talks among other about compulsory education.

“EDUCATION ACT.” n.d. Accessed April 11, 2022. http://tuvalu-legislation.tv/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/1976/1976-0003/EducationAct_1.pdf. ‌

Uganda

Seven legal statues create the framework for education in Uganda. These statues begin with the Education Ordinance of 1927 mandating government control of schools, and extend to the Education Ordinances of 1942 and 1969. As important were the Makerere Ordinance of 1938, the Makerere College Act of 1949, the Kampala Act of 1970—which chartered Makerere University—and the Education Act of 1970. In the constitution of 1995 (rev. in 2017) the right to education was institutionalized, article XVIII. States: Educational objectives i. The State shall promote free and compulsory basic education. ii. The State shall take appropriate measures to afford every citizen equal opportunity to attain the highest educational standard possible. iii. Individuals, religious bodies and other non-governmental organisations shall be free to found and operate educational institutions if they comply with the general educational policy of the country and maintain national standards.

Sources: “Uganda’s Constitution of 1995 With Amendments through 2017”. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Uganda_2017.pdf?lang=en.

“Uganda - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1584/Uganda-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Ukraine

The Law on Education adopted in 1991 secured the main principles of Ukrainian education: democracy; priority of humanistic values; organic connection with history, culture, and traditions; continuity; and diversity of educational opportunities. Article 53 of the Constitution adopted in 1996 declares the right of every citizen to an education. Basic secondary education is compulsory. The state provides free primary, secondary, and vocational technical training in the state and communal institutions. Free higher education can be attained on a competitive basis. School is separated from the church, and education has a secular character. This provision is of special importance, because there are 60 different religious confessions existing in Ukraine.

Source: “Ukraine - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1595/Ukraine-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

United Arab Emirates

Section 17 of the Constitution (1971) declares that education is fundamental to the progress of society and is to be compulsory at the primary level and free at all levels. Uniforms, books, equipment, and transportation are also free.

Source: “United Arab Emirates - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1606/United-Arab-Emirates-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

United Kingdom

The 1870 Education Act stands as the very first piece of legislation to deal specifically with the provision of education in Britain. Most importantly, it demonstrated a commitment to provision on a national scale. It was first legislation that actually acknowledged the right. In 1880 a further Education Act finally made school attendance compulsory between the ages of five and ten.

Source: UK Parliament. 2019. “The 1870 Education Act.” UK Parliament. 2019. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/livinglearning/school/overview/1870educationact/. ‌

United States

Education is not a constitutionally protected right. This is an assertation made by the US Supreme Court every time it has been challenged. In the famous case of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1971), the US Supreme Court refused to recognize the fundamental right to public education. Another famous case is the Gary B v. Whitmer case (2020). The U.S Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided that there is “ Fundamental right to basic minimum education” under the US constitution. It was the first time a court asserted a federal right to education.

Sources: Equity, Center for Educational. 2020. “Federal Court Holds There Is a Fundamental Right to Education under the U.S Constitution.” Center for Educational Equity. April 27, 2020. https://educationalequityblog.org/2020/04/27/federal-court-holds-there-is-a-fundamental-right-to-education-under-the-u-s-constitution/.

‌ Wilkins, Brooke. 2005. “Number 2 Article 8 Fall 3-2-2005, Should Public Education Be a Federal Fundamental Right?” BYU Educ. & L.J 261. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1207&context=elj. ‌

Uruguay

The right to education is enshrined in the constitution (1966). Article 70 Primary education and intermediate, agrarian, or industrial education are compulsory. The State shall promote the development of scientific research and of technical education. Appropriate legislation shall be enacted to enforce these provisions. Article 71 Free official primary, intermediate, advanced, industrial, artistic, and physical education is declared to be of social utility, as well as the creation of scholarships for continued study and specialization in cultural, scientific and occupational fields, and the establishment of public libraries. In all educational institutions special attention shall be paid to the formation of the moral and civic character of students.

Source: “Uruguay’s Constitution of 1966, Reinstated in 1985, With . ”. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Uruguay_2004.pdf?lang=en.

Uzbekistan

According to the Uzbekistan Constitution (1992), everyone is entitled to an education. The Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on education mandates equal rights for education without discrimination of any kind such as sex, language, age, race and ethnic origin, convictions, attitude towards religion, social background, place of residence, and duration of stay in the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

“Uzbekistan - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1649/Uzbekistan-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Vanuatu

//

Venezuela

According to the recently rewritten constitution of Venezuela (1999), education is "democratic, free and compulsory." At the same time, this constitution establishes that "education is a public service and is based on the respect for all philosophical schools," and it "has the purpose of developing the creative potential of each individual." The main difference between this constitution and the one written in 1961 is that the current constitution establishes that education is free and compulsory through high school. Constitutionally speaking, higher education is also free, although not compulsory.

Source: “Venezuela - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1662/Venezuela-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Vietnam

The Constitution of 1946, proclaimed soon after the birth of the DRV (North Vietnam), included free and compulsory education in the national language, Vietnamese. After the unification of Vietnam those rights were also in power in South-Vietnam.

Source: “Vietnam - Constitutional Legal Foundations.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1673/Vietnam-CONSTITUTIONAL-LEGAL-FOUNDATIONS.html. ‌

Yemen

The highest foundation for education in Yemen is the Constitution (Constitution of the Republic of Yemen, 1994), which includes several references to the obligations of the Government and its citizens in regard to education.

Article 32 of the Constitution provides that:

Education, health, and social services are the basic pillars for building and developing the society. Society shall with the state take part in providing them. The role of the Government in this respect is spelled out further in Article 53:

Education is a right for all citizens. The state shall guarantee education in accordance with the law through building various schools and cultural and educational institutions. Basic education is obligatory. The state shall do its best to obliterate illiteracy and give special care to expanding technical and vocational education. . . .

Source: “Yemen’s Constitution of 1991 With Amendments through 2015”. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Yemen_2015.pdf?lang=en.

Zambia

Zambia has ratified most international treaties that protect the right to education. Although the 1991 Constitution of the Republic of Zambia does not protect the right to education, it is under review, and the right to education was expected to be included in the revised constitution. However also in the constitution of 2016 this not included. Because the current constitution does not include the right to education, however, there are currently few redress mechanisms for the right to education in Zambia. Zambia’s main legislation on education is the Education Act 2011, which identifies each person’s rights to early childhood education, basic education and high school education. Since 2006, government education policies have focused on access, but there is a recent shift towards improving quality of education in addition to addressing accessibility issues.

Source: “RIGHT TO EDUCATION COUNTRY FACTSHEET ZAMBIA”. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resource-attachments/RTE_Country_Factsheet_Zambia_2012.pdf.

Zimbabwe

The Zimbabwe Constitution (2013) provides and protects the right to education. The right is both highlighted in the National Objectives (Section 27) and further emphasised and expounded under the Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms (Section 75) as an explicit right. Table 2.1: Fundamental human rights and freedoms: education Chapter 4, Part 2: Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms Section 75. Right to Education Every citizen and permanent resident has a right to – a basic State-funded education, including adult basic education; and further education, which the State, through reasonable legislative and other measures, must make progressively available and accessible.

Source: “The Right to Education – Socio-Economic Rights in Zimbabwe.” n.d. Accessed April 11, 2022. https://socioeconomicrights.co.zw/education/. ‌

Is there another noteworthy written source from the past that mentions this right?

There are many noteworthy written sources from the past that mentions the right to education. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document produced by the United Nations in 1948, explicitly states in Article 26 that all people have the right to education, and lays out guidelines pertaining to the education people have the right to. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a document that grants all people in the world thirty rights that they are entitled to, one of these being education. According to this document, elementary education is to be free, and higher level and technical education should be accessible to all (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, page 7). This document is still in effect today, granting all people the right to education.

Given that the right to education largely deals with the rights of children, it is often intertwined with the legal system. The case Wisconsin v. Yoder deals with the compulsory school attendance law for children in Wisconsin, a law that requires every child to attend school until at least age sixteen. An Amish family in Wisconsin withdrew their children from school after the eighth grade because they did not believe it was necessary for the children and claimed that the Amish community continued to educate their children outside of school in order to prepare them to live in an Amish community. Amish parents are generally in favor of compulsory elementary education for their children, but not high school education, as during high school, the Amish believe that children are taught things that go against Amish beliefs and values (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972). In the end, the courts sided with the family, and ruled that on the grounds of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the state could not force Amish parents to send their children to school until age sixteen (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972, 234).

While these children had the right to education, this case brought into question whether or not the government has the power to force children to attend school until they graduate. In line with children having a right to education, Wisconsin v. Yoder states “Finally, the State, on authority of Prince v. Massachusetts, argues that a decision exempting Amish children from the State’s requirement fails to recognize the substantive right of the Amish child to a secondary education” (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972, 229). Here, the court is recognizing that if the Amish children are not required as per the state requirements to attend school, they are being kept from having an equal right to receive an education, in this court case, the children in question are being kept from receiving a proper secondary education.

Furthermore, in Wisconsin v. Yoder, “The dissent argues that a child who expresses a desire to attend public high school in conflict with the wishes of his parents should not be prevented from doing so” (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972, 231). While this case ruled in the favor of the parents allowing their children to stop attending school, it created the basis that children should be allowed to attend school if they so choose to, regardless of what the parents beliefs are or what the parent wants for their child. This creates a child’s right to education in the sense that it creates the precedent that neither a child’s parents nor the courts have the power to restrict children from accessing an education.

Another landmark court decision regarding the right to education was the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. Supreme Court case. This case was a compilation of five similar court cases, all regarding segregation of schools, that the Supreme Court decided to hear at once, Briggs et al. v. Elliot et al. in South Carolina, Bolling v. Sharpe in the District of Columbia, Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al. in Virginia, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in Kansas, and Gebhart et al. v. Belton et al. in Delaware. All of these cases involved segregated school districts in which white children had access to more funding and overall better schools than African American children did. In all of these cases, the defendants reported that their schools did not have “playgrounds, ball fields, cafeterias, libraries, auditoriums, and other amenities provided for white children in newer schools” (Delinder, 2004). While the students in these school districts did have the right to education, they were not being given the right to equal, unsegregated education. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.The ruling in Brown v. Board of Education paved the way for students of all races to receive equal treatment in schools, thus giving all students an equal right to education.

The Brown v. Board of Education court case states, “In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms” (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954). In this portion, the court is asserting that a child needs to receive an education in order to be successful in life, and also that when the state is providing education for students, every child must have equal access to this education.

Sources:

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. No. 1, 1954 (Supreme Court of the United States)

Jean Van Delinder, “Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka: A Landmark Case Unresolved Fifty Years Later”, Spring 2004, National Archives Prologue Magazine Vol. 36, No. 1 (https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2004/spring/brown-v-board-1.html#:~:text=On%20May%2017%2C%201954%2C%20the,schools%20in%20twenty%2Done%20states)

United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 1948

Wisconsin v. Yoder, No. 70-110, 1972 (Supreme Court of Wisconsin)

Is the identification of this right associated with a particular era in history, political regime, or political leader?

There are a few political leaders that are associated with the right to education. One of these is Horace Mann, an education reformer from Massachusetts who is often credited as being the father of the public school (Finkelstein, 1990, 7). Mann was involved with Massachusetts' politics for most of his career, and in 1837 he was appointed as the Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education. As Graham Warder says, “Mann argued that the common school, a free, universal, non-sectarian, and public institution, was the best means of achieving the moral and socioeconomic uplift of all Americans” (Warder, 2019). The common school was the basis for today’s public schools. It was Mann’s belief that everyone had the right to not only an education, but a free public education.

In the article Horace Mann on the Economic Productivity of Education by Maris A. Vinovkis, he says, “There have been many attempts to categorize Mann’s arguments for education. One useful summary presents the following seven categories… (6) It is the natural right of all individuals” (Vinovkis, 552). Mann’s beliefs on education can be broken down into seven main points, point six being that every individual has the right to an education. This belief was core to Mann, and would lead to the eventual creation of the public school, which, now, every child in the United States has access to.

Another formative leader in education reform was John Stuart Mill, a philosopher from England. Mill was very passionate about mandatory education, and the creation of a national education system. Bruce Baum, in J.S. Mill’s Political Thought a Bicentennial Reassessment, states, “Mill’s chief reformist liberal proposals to equalize opportunities across generations are a heavy progressive inheritance tax, taxation of unearned land rents, and publicly supported general education” (Baum, 2007, 110). Mill supported public education as a way to ensure that people had the same opportunities as one another. The right to education is one of the first steps in ensuring that all individuals have the same access to certain opportunities in life, such as getting better jobs after leaving school.

In his book, On Liberty, Mill states “Were the duty of enforcing universal education once admitted there would be an end to the difficulties about what the State should teach, and how it should teach” (Mill, 1859, 97). It was Mill’s belief that education should be made universal, and by doing so, the issues surrounding teaching and education would be lessened. Universal education would grant more children the right to education, as it would be universally implemented, rather than left up to individual school districts to decide how to run their education system. This would also allow a greater number of people to have the right to education.

When discussing Mills’ beliefs on education, Wendy Donner states “In On Liberty, for example, Mill argues that the process of development of the human capacities requires that the groundwork be laid in childhood education. Hence his argument that children have a right to an education” (Donner, 2007, 261). Mill was an early believer that all children have the right to an education.

Sources:

Mill. John Stuart. On Liberty, 1859, Kitchener, Ontario: Batoche Books Limited, 2001 edition

Warder, Graham. “Horace Mann and The Creation Of The Common School”, 2019, VCU Libraries Social Welfare History Project, (https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/education/horace-mann-creation-common-school/)

Urbinati, Nadia and Zakaras, Alex, eds. J.S. Mill’s Political Thought A Bicentennial Reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007

Vinovskis, Maris A. “Horace Mann on the Economic Productivity of Education.” The New England Quarterly 43, No. 4 (Dec. 1970), pp 550-571

What specific events or ideas contributed to its identification as a fundamental right?

The publication of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was an event that contributed to the identification of education as a fundamental right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a document that grants every citizen of every country thirty rights which they cannot be denied. This document was originally written in an effort to try to prevent the events of World War II from happening again. Thus, the United Nations and their Commission on Human Rights created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights drafting committee, chaired by former First Lady of the United States, Eleanor Roosevelt. The group met for the first time in 1947, and by December of 1948, the document was published, giving all citizens thirty undeniable human rights.

Article twenty six of this document grants all citizens the right to education. This article is broken down into three main parts, the first of which gives everyone the right to free and compulsory elementary education, and equally accessible professional and technical education. The second part of article twenty six says that education should “promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, 7). With this part of the document, the United Nations is aiming to promote peace and greater understanding between groups of individuals through granting everyone the right to education. The third, and final, part of this article gives parents the power to choose the type of education that their child will receive. This gives the parents the right to make certain decisions regarding their child’s education, such as whether or not they attend a public or private school, or if they choose to home-school their child.

In addition to this, the ideas of Horace Mann and John Stuart Mill contributed to the identification of education as a fundamental right. John Stuart Mill was an early believer that children have the right to an education. As Wendy Donner writes about Mill, “he distinguished himself by fighting not only for women’s suffrage but also for the universal right to schooling in the era before these rights to education were widely accepted … Hence his argument that children have a right to an education” (Donner, 2007, 261). Mill was ahead of his time with his beliefs on many things, including education. Mill wanted schooling to be universal as he thought that all children have the right to be educated.

Horace Mann, often referred to as the father of the public school, referred to as the common school during his lifetime, was another figure in education reform whose ideas contributed to the identification of education as a fundamental right. Mann had many beliefs surrounding education, which can be broken down, according to Maris Vinovskis, into seven categories. The sixth of these categories states that education is “the natural right of all individuals” (Vinovskis, 1970, 552). It was central to Mann’s beliefs that everyone had the right to an education and that this education should be received through a school that was funded by tax dollars, and thus free for the student to attend.

Sources:

United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 1948

United Nations. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights: History of the Declaration,” https://www.un.org/en/about-us/udhr/history-of-the-declaration (accessed 01 February 2022).

Wendy Donner “John Stuart Mill on Education and Democracy” in J.S. Mill’s Political Thought: A Bicentennial Reassessment. edited by Urbinati, Nadia and Zakaras, Alex, 250-274, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007

Maris A. Vinovskis, “Horace Mann on the Economic Productivity of Education” The New England Quarterly 43, No. 4 (December 1970), 550-571

When was it generally accepted as a fundamental, legally-protectable right?

The right to education was generally accepted as a fundamental human right in 1948 with the publication of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The legal protection of a person’s right to education came at different points for different states. Massachusetts was the first state to recognize the importance of education as a fundamental right, in 1852, when it made education compulsory, the first state in the United States to do so. It was not until 1917 that every state had passed a law making school attendance mandatory. These laws make it mandatory that every child attend school, asserting their right to an education.

Sources:

FindLaw. “Compulsory Education Laws: Background,” 2016. https://www.findlaw.com/education/education-options/compulsory-education-laws-background.html (accessed 01 February 2022).

United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 1948

What historical forces or events, if any, contributed to a widespread belief in its importance?

While it is a widespread belief that the right to education is an important right, it is hard to pinpoint this to any particular historic forces or events.

Legal Codification

Is it contained in the US Constitution?

The right to education is not contained in the US Constitution.

Has it been interpreted as being implicit in the US Constitution?

Although the right to education is not granted to United States’ citizens through the Constitution, multiple court cases have cited the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to education, asserting that one cannot be denied the right to an equal education based on things such as their gender or race. According to the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, it is unconstitutional for a state to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, 1868). The courts have, on multiple occasions, interpreted this clause to protect a person’s right to an equal education. Some scholars have even further interpreted other amendments and clauses from the Constitution as granting people the right to education. In “Theoretical Foundations For a Right to Education Under the US Constitution: A Beginning to the End of the National Education Crisis”, Susan Bitensky states, “an unenumerated positive right to education arises from the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and, indirectly from the Constitution’s references to elections and voting” (Bitensky, 77, 1992). In Bitensky’s article, she demonstrated multiple different ways that the United States Constitution can be interpreted as giving people an implicit right to education.

One of these court cases is Plyler, Superintendent, Tyler Independent School District, et al. v. Doe, Guardian et al. This is a Supreme Court case which focuses on the education of undocumented children in Texas who have immigrated from Mexico with their parents. The question at stake with this case was whether or not the state of Texas was obligated to provide these children with an education. Prior to this case, the state of Texas would not provide undocumented children with a free education. In order for these children to be educated, Texas charged their parents tuition for the otherwise free schools, which most of their parents were unable to pay. This case not only uses the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but also the due process clause, which can be found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The due process clause states that no one in the United States can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (United States Constitution, Fifth Amendment, 1791). In regards to this case, the due process clause was used to argue that these children could not be deprived of their right to receive an education, even though they were not citizens of the United States.

The case went on to say that denying a child the opportunity to an education “takes an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological well-being of the individual” (Plyler v. Doe, 203, 1981). While the Constitution never granted people in the United States the right to an education, the courts have testified to the importance of children having access to a proper education, as they did in this case.

Plyler goes on to say that “by depriving the children of any disfavored group of an education, we foreclose the means by which that group might raise the level of esteem in which it is held by the majority” (Plyler v. Doe, 222, 1981). Depriving a minority group of an education will only serve to keep them a minority group in our society when the opposite should be true. Everyone should have an equal access to education which would then serve to allow them to better themselves in the same way that majority groups are able to.

On the matter of the children at question in this court case being undocumented, the case states, “the undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents” (Plyler v. Doe, 203, 1981). In this scenario, the benefit is the right to an education. The due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments can be applied to all people who are in the United States, not just citizens of the country. On this, the court states, “Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments” (Plyler v. Doe, 210, 1981). Even though the children in this court case are not United States citizens, they are still people, therefore they still have the right to due process as is outlined in the Constitution.

Another Supreme Court case that deals with the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to education is United States v. Virginia et al. This case deals with the Virginia Military Institute which was an all male military college. A young woman wanted to apply to VMI, but was not allowed to on the basis of her gender, which prompted her to file a complaint with the Attorney General. The filing of this complaint then led the United States to sue the Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as VMI. The first issue in this case was whether or not “Virginia’s exclusion of women from the educational opportunities provided by VMI … deny to women ‘capable of all of the individual activities required of VMI cadets,’ … equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment?” (United States v. Virginia, 530, 1996). The second issue at stake in this case was “if VMI’s ‘unique’ situation, id., at 1413- as Virginia’s sole single-sex public institution of higher education- offends the Constitution’s equal protection principle, what is the remedial requirement?” (United States v. Virginia, 530-531, 1996). In the end, the Supreme Court found that it was indeed unconstitutional for the Virginia Military Institute to have an admissions policy that only accepts men. In their decision, the Supreme Court stated that they “therefore affirm the Fourth Circuit’s initial judgment, which held that Virginia had violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause” (United States v. Virginia, 534, 1996). This meant that the Virginia Military Institute would become a co-educational school, and began accepting women into their program in 1997. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, it was found unconstitutional for the school to only admit men as there was no female alternative that was equal to the Virginia Military Institute. Once again, despite the fact that there is no mention of the right to education in the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted here in order to ensure that both men and women were receiving equal educational opportunities.

Similarly to the case regarding the Virginia Military Institute, the Supreme Court case Mississippi University for Women vs. Hogan deals with a single gender institute, this time an all women’s university in which a man is seeking admission into. In this case, the Supreme Court held that “MUW’s policy of denying males the right to enroll for credit in its School of Nursing violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” (MUW vs. Hogan, 1982). Joe Hogan was a registered nurse who wanted to further his education by receiving a baccalaureate degree in nursing from the Mississippi University for Women’s School of Nursing. Despite meeting all of the qualifications to gain admission to this program, Hogan was denied on the basis of his sex, leading to this court case.

The Supreme Court decided that they “conclude that the State’s policy of excluding males from MUW’s School of Nursing violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals” (MUW vs. Hogan, 1982). Once again, on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the court ruled that it was unconstitutional for a single sex university of this nature to exist, asserting that a right to education does exist in the United States even though it is not explicitly outlined in the Constitution.

In regards to elementary education, the court case Horton v. Meskill, which was argued in the Connecticut Supreme Court, held that people do have a right to an education. This case was a compilation of three court cases based in Canton, Connecticut in 1974, which all dealt with the same issue. Plaintiff Horton was a kindergarten student at Canton Elementary School, plaintiff Barnhart was a sixth grade student at Canton Middle School, and plaintiff Grace was a seventh grade student at Canton High School. The plaintiffs brought about this lawsuit because schools in Connecticut were funded based on property taxes. This meant that students in lower income towns were receiving worse educations because their properties generated less money via taxes, while students living in higher income towns had access to better educations because their properties generated more property tax.

The court held that “in Connecticut the right to education is so basic and fundamental that any infringement of that right must be strictly scrutinized” (Horton v. Meskill, 1977). The court found that students in Connecticut do have the explicit right to education. In Connecticut, “The constitutional provision ultimately adopted by the convention reads as follows: ‘There shall always be free public elementary and secondary schools in the state. The general assembly shall implement this principle by appropriate legislation’.” (Horton v. Meskill, 1977). The Constitution of the state of Connecticut explicitly states that all children in the state have the right to receive not only an education, but a free elementary and secondary education. The Supreme Court of Connecticut upheld this belief by ruling that “without doubt the trial court correctly held that, in Connecticut, elementary and secondary education is a fundamental right, that pupils in the public schools are entitled to the equal enjoyment of that right” (Horton v. Meskill, 1977).

The court went on to say that, “The right of our children to an education is a matter of a right not only because our state constitution declares it as such, but because education is the very essence and foundation of a civilized culture…it is as necessary to a civilized society as food and shelter are to an individual” (Horton v. Meskill, 1977). The court upheld in this case that all individuals in Connecticut have the right to receive an education.

Sources:

Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 1977 (Supreme Court of Connecticut)

Mississippi University for Women vs. Hogan, No. 81-406, 1982 (Supreme Court of the United States)

Plyler, Superintendent, Tyler Independent School District, et al. v. Doe, Guardian et al, No. 80-1538, 1982 (Supreme Court of the United States)

Susan H. Bitensky, "Theoretical Foundations for a Right to Education under the U.S. Constitution: A Beginning to the End of the National Education Crisis ," Northwestern University Law Review 86, no. 3 (1991-1992): 550-642

United States v. Virginia et al, No. 94-1941, 1996 (Supreme Court of the United States)

Are there any exceptions in American law to this right?

No, according to the Equal Educational Opportunities Act that was passed in 1974, every child in the United States has the right to an education. This Act days that “all children enrolled in public schools are entitled to equal educational opportunity without regard to race, color, sex, or national origin” (Equal Educational Opportunities Act, 948, 1974). This means that states do not have the power to deny anyone their right to receive an education, and everyone must have access to the same educational opportunities.

Source:

Equal Educational Opportunities Act, H.R. 40, 93rd Congress (1973-1974)

Is this right enshrined in international and regional human rights treaties?

Yes, the right to education is enshrined in many international and regional human rights treaties.

1. The right to education in international human right treaties

• The UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR). The universal most general normative framework of the right to education is obviously the International Bill of Human Rights (IBHR), formed of the UDHR (1948), the ICESCR (1966) (and the ICCPR (1966)) (A Reis Monteiro 2021). In the UDHR, article 26 talks about the right to education. It talks about the access to education for example: ‘education shall be free’ and ‘higher education shall be equally accessible’, it talks about quality: ‘Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality’ and obligations: Elementary education shall be compulsory. Article 26 1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. 2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. 3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). ICESCR is also part of the universal bill of rights but talks specifically about economic, social, and cultural rights. There are two articles specifically about the right to education articles 13 and 14 (they are listed below). Article 13, the longest provision in the Covenant, is the most wide-ranging and comprehensive article on the right to education in international human rights law (“OHCHR | D) General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education (Article 13) (1999)” 2019). Just like the UDHR, the ICESCR talks about access, quality, rights, and obligations regarding education. Article 14 talks about the obligation for states to make an ‘action plan’ to improve the conditions of their education systems, if the requirements of education the at the moment of signing aren’t fulfilled.

Article 13 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. 2. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, with a view to achieving the full realization of this right: (a) Primary education shall be compulsory and available free to all; (b) Secondary education in its different forms, including technical and vocational secondary education, shall be made generally available and accessible to all by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education; (c) Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education; (d) Fundamental education shall be encouraged or intensified as far as possible for those persons who have not received or completed the whole period of their primary education; (e) The development of a system of schools at all levels shall be actively pursued, an adequate fellowship system shall be established, and the material conditions of teaching staff shall be continuously improved. 3. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. 4. No part of this article shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions, subject always to the observance of the principles set forth in paragraph I of this article and to the requirement that the education given in such institutions shall conform to such minimum standards as may be laid down by the State. Article 14 Each State Party to the present Covenant which, at the time of becoming a Party, has not been able to secure in its metropolitan territory or other territories under its jurisdiction compulsory primary education, free of charge, undertakes, within two years, to work out and adopt a detailed plan of action for the progressive implementation, within a reasonable number of years, to be fixed in the plan, of the principle of compulsory education free of charge for all.

• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). CEDAW is a UN convention about Women rights and ending all forms of discrimination against women. The right to education is mentioned a couple of times in the treaty. The treaty talks about equal rights regarding education, ending stereotyped concepts on education, access to education (in particular for women in poor countries), equal responsibility in educating children, resolving the gap between men and women in education (OHCHR 1979).

• Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The CRC is a convention that underscores that children have the same rights as other humans and in some cases even have special additional rights. Education is related with children because obviously they are the main group that gets education, that’s also the reason that in the convention, education is often mentioned. As with other UN treaties, the CRC refers to access, affordability, quality, and obligations for states.

• Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The CRPD is a convention that deals with people with disabilities, it wants to ensure that all people with all sorts of disabilities have the all the human rights and liberties. One of these rights is education. The convention talks about access (anti-discrimination), quality, inclusiveness, and participation.

There are also conventions, declarations, and recommendations on the right to education by international organizations like UNESCO and the ILO. Some important conventions from UNESCO regarding education are: – Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960), with a Protocol Instituting a Conciliation and Good Offices Commission to be responsible for seeking a settlement of any disputes which may arise between States Parties to the Convention against Discrimination in Education (1962) This Convention is the principal instrument of the IEL, having been ratified by 106 States (as of December 2020). – Convention on Technical and Vocational Education (1989) This Convention did not succeed, as it was ratified by only 19 States (as of December 2020) (A Reis Monteiro 2021). It hasn’t been ratified yet by enough states.

2. The right to education in regional human right treaties

Here follows an overview of almost all the regional human right treaties involving the right of education.

– European region (A Reis Monteiro 2021). - Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Council of Europe, 1952, Article 2, the first international binding instrument to include the right to education. - European Social Charter Council of Europe, 1961 (revised in 1996, with a Protocol adopted in 1965), principally Articles 7, 9, 10, 15, and 17, 19 - European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages Council of Europe, 1992, Article 8 - Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities Council of Europe, 1995, Articles 12, 13 and 14 - European Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education Council of Europe, 2010 - The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000) addresses the right to education in Article 14, mentioning education also in Article 32 and "teaching" in Article 10. - The Commonwealth of Independent States Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1995) addresses the right to education in Arti- cles 27 and 28.278 – American region (A Reis Monteiro 2021). - Charter of the Organisation of American States OAS, 1948, principally Article 49, but with many other references to education: Articles 3.n, 30, 31, 34.h, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 94, 95.2 and 111 – American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man OAS, 1948, Articles XII and XXXI – American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San José) OAS, 1969, Preamble and Articles 12.4, with references to education in Pre- amble and Articles 23, 26 and 42 – Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador) OAS, 1988, Article 13 and also in Articles 7, 10, 16 and 19 – Inter-American Democratic Charter OAS, 2001, Articles 16 and 27 – African region (A Reis Monteiro 2021). – African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Banjul Charter) OAU, 1981, Article 17, education being also mentioned in Article 25 – African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child OAU, 1990, Articles 11, 14, 16 and 20 – Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa African Union, 2003, Article 12 and others – African Youth Charter African Union, 2006, principally Articles 10.3.d, 13 and 23 – Other organisations and instruments (A Reis Monteiro 2021). – ASEAN Human Rights Declaration ASEAN, 2012, Article 31 – Arab Charter on Human Rights League of Arab States, 2004, Article 41 and also Articles 30, 34, 39 and 40 – Arab Charter on the Rights of the Child League of Arab States, 1983 (available in Arabic only) – Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam OIC, 1990, Articles 7 and 9 – SAARC Social Charter SAARC, 2004, principally Article V.1 – Covenant on the Rights of the Child in Islam OIC, 2005, principally Article 12 3. Conclusion

We can conclude that the right to education is enshrined in many international treaties and conventions. A lot of treaties repeat the same aspects on the right on education like access, affordability and participation. Some treaties underscore specially one group like women, children and people with disabilities.

Sources: • A Reis Monteiro. 2021. Revolution of the Right to Education. Leiden ; Boston: Brill Sense. • “OHCHR | D) General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education (Article 13) (1999).” 2019. Ohchr.org. 2019. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Education/Training/Compilation/Pages/d)GeneralCommentNo13Therighttoeducation(article13)(1999).aspx. • OHCHR. 1979. “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.” Ohchr.org. December 18, 1979. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cedaw.aspx. • UN. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. United Nations, December 10, 1948. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.

Philosophical Origins

What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?

Buddhism

Education has been a key focus for Buddhism since the early days of Buddhism. The Biddhists were one of the first groups of people to make education available to everyone. As Kotapitiye Rahula states, “the Buddhists in the world first made Education open to all. The Core of Buddha’s teaching consists of three major points, discipline, meditation and wisdom” (Rahula, 2015). These are the main principles of Buddhist education- discipline, meditation, and wisdom. Soni Lakra Dahiya, in her article “Development of Education during the Buddhist Period” states, “the metaphysics of Buddhist, philosophy of education was the primacy of mind in all men’s thought and action: path to self-realisation lay through purity of mind” (Dahiya, 2016, 171). This holds that the Buddhist philosophy of education wanted to give people the path to self realization and purity.

Kotapitiye Rahula, in the article “Buddhist Studies as a Discipline and its Role in the Education, writes “The Buddhists in the world first made Education open to all. The Core of Buddha’s teaching contains three major points, discipline, meditation and wisdom” (Rahula, 2015). Buddhism finds education to be of great value to people, and especially emphasizes the importance of discipline, meditation, and wisdom. It has been said that “Buddhism gives the highest regard for wisdom and purity of the mind from mental defilements, and the worst condemn for ignorance” (Dhammananda 2005). Education and wisdom are some of the most sacred beliefs in the eyes of Buddhism.

Selestina Rodrigo was an important Buddhist woman who opened a school for Buddhist women in Ceylon, which is present day Sri Lanka. She “broke ranks to identify and cause the upliftment of the underprivileged rights of Buddhist women, by establishing a school called Visakha Vidyalaya” (Samarasinghe, 2018, 58). During this time, Buddhist women were falling far behind Buddhist men in terms of education, and she was determined to change this and provide Buddhist women with the proper right to an education. At this time, in 1911, the male literacy rate was 47.2% and the female literacy rate was a mere 12.5% (Samarasinghe, 2018, 59). Through Rodrigo’s school, she hoped to improve these numbers for women.

Because of her efforts to provide the Buddhist women of Ceylon an equal education, “Selestina created a new wave of feminism by establishing a school in 1917, sanctioning educational rights to Buddhist women” (Samarasinghe, 2018, 62). Visakha Vidyalaya still stands today, continuing on Selestina’s legacy of providing the right to education to Buddhist women in Sri Lanka.

As Thero writes, in the article “Share the Vision on Buddhist Philosophy of Education”, “the whole purpose of the Buddhist education is to develop the personality of person. When it is compared with the objectives of modern education, the Buddhist education objective seems to be a wide and deep one” (Thero, 2017, 111). Selestina, with her school for Buddhist women, created the right for Buddhist women in Ceylon to access an education, which would then give Buddhist women the ability to ‘develop the personality of person’, as is a goal of Buddhist education, according to Thero.

Sources:

Kotapitiye Rahula, “Buddhist Studies as a Discipline and its Role in the Education” 2015, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, https://www.sjp.ac.lk/news/buddhist-studies-as-a-discipline-and-its-role-in-the-education/ (accessed 29 March 2022).

Soni Lakra Dahiya, “Development of Education during the Buddhist Period” International Journal of Recent Research in Social Sciences and Humanities 3, No. 4 (2016) 170-171

Bhikkhuni Dhammananda “Buddhist Attitude to Education” 2005, https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha294.htm (accessed 01 April 2022).

Senaka A. Samarasinghe, “Selestina Rodrigo: Convinced the British colonial government that education is a right for Buddhist women” Net Journal of Social Sciences 6, No. 3 (November 2018) 58-62

Ven. Mediyawe Piyarathana Thero, “Share the Vision on Buddhist Philosophy of Education” Asia Pacific Journal of Contemporary Education and Communication Technology 3, No. 2 (2017) 100-116

Platonism

Plato gives education a lot of roles in society. Plato thinks that the ultimate aim of education is to help people know the idea of the good, which is to be virtuous (Murphy 2015). He stated that we need education to learn how to live well (Nyland 2019). Plato also argues that to maintain a stable state, it is necessary that all citizens are educated (“What Were Plato’s Thoughts on Education?” 2019/). Plato also believes that education is the road to achieving justice. So, he regards education as a means to achieve justice both individual justice and social justice (Lee 2010). Individual justice can be achieved when each individual develops his or her ability to the fullest. Social justice can be achieved when all social classes in a society are in a harmonious relationship (Lee 2010). How can this harmonious relationship be achieved? Here education plays a role for Plato, the harmonious relationship can be achieved by giving everyone an equal educational opportunity and can compete fairly with each other (Lee 2010). Plato argues that equal opportunity of education is the first step to achieving a just society (Murphy 2015). Unequal educational opportunity will lead to a bad political system (Lee 2010). What does Plato exactly mean with equal educational opportunity? Educational opportunity is given differently to different people since people will demonstrate their own abilities during the course of education. Plato believes that a society needs to select people to receive their own education to their abilities. Plato argues that to get to justice: education should be for all people regardless of social factors such as wealth and blood (Lee 2010). Important regarding the right to education, Plato was the first to suggest equal education for men and women (Murphy 2015). So, Plato argued that in a perfect state, both boys needed to receive an education. He thinks that there is no difference between the capabilities of men and women (“What Were Plato’s Thoughts on Education?” 2019). On the subject of institutions, Plato argues that a state should have a structured system where children of both sexes must attend schools (“What Were Plato’s Thoughts on Education?” 2019). Plato also talks about the relationship between the teacher and the student. He argues that the teacher and students should have a great love for each other (Murphy 2015). He argues that when the student and teacher have a good relationship the educational exchange will be better. Plato’s ideas still have a big impact today. Plato’s theories currently still shape the educational system of most countries, not just western countries (“What Were Plato’s Thoughts on Education?” 2019). Plato has a lot of influence in how we perceive and organize education (“What Were Plato’s Thoughts on Education?” 2019). For example, he already made the division between primary and high school (Nyland 2019). He also introduced some concepts who are still relevant today. For example, he argued that education is a life-long process and even adults can be trained and educated. In his famous work the republic he stated that “education is not limited to youth even after maturity” (“What Were Plato’s Thoughts on Education?” 2019). Plato identifies six stages of education, the first one starts at seven years old, and the last stage only begins at the age of 50 (“Plato: Educational Philosophy of Plato” 2022). The concept “education for all” is also in his writings (“Plato: Educational Philosophy of Plato” 2022). He also advocated for public education, with one big exception only higher education for children who are suitably gifted. He argues that this higher education will qualify them to assume the role of the ruling class (“Plato: Educational Philosophy of Plato” 2022). Plato sees education as a state function (“Plato: Educational Philosophy of Plato” 2022). Plato wants a state-controlled educational system (Nyland 2019). He states that “Education should be completely under control of the state”. He also argues that the state should control the curriculum and methods of teaching (“Plato: Educational Philosophy of Plato” 2022).

Sources:

• Lee, Myungjoon. 2010. “Plato’s Philosophy of Education: Its Implication for Current Education.” E-Publications@Marquette. 2010. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations/AAI9517932/.

• “What Were Plato’s Thoughts on Education?” 2019. Through Education. December 11, 2019. https://www.througheducation.com/platos-theory-of-education-explained/.

• Murphy, Madonna. 2015. “Plato’s Philosophy of Education and the Common Core Debate.” https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED559997.pdf.

• “Plato: Educational Philosophy of Plato.” 2022. Online Note Bank. January 15, 2022. https://onlinenotebank.wordpress.com/2022/01/15/educational-philosophy-of-plato/.

• Nyland, Alexander. 2019. “What Plato’s Philosophy of Education Can Teach Us Today.” Learning Mind. July 7, 2019. https://www.learning-mind.com/plato-philosophy-of-education-lessons/.

Aristotelian thought

Aristotle’s definition of education is the creation of a sound mind in a sound body (admin, n.d.). What is the aim of education for Aristotle? Aristotle gives a broad range of goals. Aristotle argues that education should enable people to live well and to live a good life in the society they belong to (“For Aristotle, Education Is What Equips Us for a Better Life – c D c Reeve | Aeon Essays,” n.d., “Aristotle B.C.) (384–322) - Education for a Common End,” n.d., admin, n.d.). Aristotle believes that education enables to grow ethically and socially (“Aristotle B.C.) (384–322) - Education for a Common End,” n.d.). Aristotle thinks that the purpose of schooling to develop and habits that exercise reason and forming a human’s ethos (“Aristotle,” n.d.). From Aristotle’s point of view on education: education is not to prepare students for the work world. One of the goals of education is to provide their citizens the leisure needed for lifelong education and happiness promoting use of that education in accessing worthwhile goods (“For Aristotle, Education Is What Equips Us for a Better Life – c D c Reeve | Aeon Essays,” n.d.). In contrary to Plato and Socrates he believed in the purposefulness of education. For Aristotle the aim of education was not only the attainment of knowledge but also the attainment of happiness or goodness in life (admin, n.d.). Aristotle has divided goodness into two categories: ‘goodness of intellect’ and ‘goodness of character’. The former can be produced and increased by teaching and is the product of training and experience. The latter is the result of habit, and it can be achieved by the formation of good habits (admin, n.d.). Aristotle argues that schools need to prepare future citizens with more functional knowledge needed to conduct their political, social and economic affairs (“Aristotle,” n.d.). Aristotle thinks that education is very important, he thinks that the fulfilled person is an educated person (“Aristotle and Education | Infed.org,” n.d., admin, n.d.). Aristotle emphases the importance of all round development (“Aristotle and Education | Infed.org,” n.d., admin, n.d.). He advocates for a broad range of subjects ranging from music to mathematics (“For Aristotle, Education Is What Equips Us for a Better Life – c D c Reeve | Aeon Essays,” n.d.). Aristotle believes that best method of learning is by actually doing it in practice (“Aristotle and Education | Infed.org,” n.d.). Just as Plato, Aristotle sees learning as a lifelong process (“Aristotle and Education | Infed.org,” n.d., “For Aristotle, Education Is What Equips Us for a Better Life – c D c Reeve | Aeon Essays,” n.d., “Aristotle B.C.) (384–322) - Education for a Common End,” n.d., “(PDF) Education -Plato vs Aristotle,” n.d.). Aristotle also thinks that education should be public and developed with an eye to the political system it is preparing students to be citizen of (“For Aristotle, Education Is What Equips Us for a Better Life – c D c Reeve | Aeon Essays,” n.d.). Aristotle is for public education and thinks that the state is responsible for education (“Aristotle B.C.) (384–322) - Education for a Common End,” n.d., “(PDF) Education -Plato vs Aristotle,” n.d.). Aristotle argues against letting education be done by a private enterprise (admin, n.d.). He thinks that the state is responsible for educating their citizens. He makes for arguments for public education: 1) constitutional arrangements, 2) from the origins of virtue, 3) from a common end to be sought by all citizens and 4) from an inseparability of the individual and the community (“Aristotle B.C.) (384–322) - Education for a Common End,” n.d.). Just as Plato he believes that education of the early childhood period (0-7 years old) should be the responsibility of their parents. After this, further education is the responsibility of the state. But the parents are still responsible for moral education He divided education in three stages: primary, secondary, and higher education (“Aristotle,” n.d., admin, n.d.). The first stage is from 7 until 14 years old, the students will attend primary school and they would do: gymnastics, writing, reading, music and drawing. The second stage is from 14 until 21 years old, the students will attend secondary school, they will continue their primary studies while implementing literature, poetry, drama, music, and dancing. The third stage is from 21 years old, students would attend higher studies if the student was willing and able to (“Aristotle,” n.d., “(PDF) Education -Plato vs Aristotle,” n.d.). An important remark about the third stage, higher education was only for men. Aristotle thought that women were not capable of such complex studies (“Aristotle,” n.d., “(PDF) Education -Plato vs Aristotle,” n.d.).

Sources:

• “Aristotle and Education | Infed.org.” n.d. https://infed.org/mobi/aristotle-and-education/.

• “For Aristotle, Education Is What Equips Us for a Better Life – c D c Reeve | Aeon Essays.” n.d. Aeon. https://aeon.co/essays/for-aristotle-education-is-what-equips-us-for-a-better-life.

• “Aristotle B.C.) (384–322) - Education for a Common End.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1763/Aristotle-384-322-B-C-E.html.

• “Aristotle.” n.d. The Roots of Educational Theory. https://educationalroots.weebly.com/aristotle.html.

• admin. n.d. “Aristotle – on Education | Dr. V.K. Maheshwari, Ph.D.” http://www.vkmaheshwari.com/WP/?p=2218.

• “(PDF) Education -Plato vs Aristotle.” n.d. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332549164_Education_-Plato_Vs_Aristotle.

Stoicism

Stoicism, is a school of thought that flourished in Greek and Roman antiquity. It was one of the loftiest and most sublime philosophies in the record of Western civilization (Saunders 2019). Stoicism started in 300 BC in Greece and then extended into Rome. The main question of Stoicism is: ‘What should be the character of human conduct in the face of the trials and torments that buffet one throughout life (Sherman 1973). Zeno (336-264 B.C.), the first Stoic wrote a book about education but sadly it has been lost (Sherman 1973). Stoic’s educational ideas must be approached indirectly. The philosophers did not write much about education itself; they wrote, instead about man. We must be clear, direct references to education, especially as it is known today, is at a minimum in Stoic writings (Sherman 1973). And even when Stoics talk about education, they are not talking about the formal education we know today. For a Stoic, education has to do with developing the student’s thought process by teaching them to question everything, share their ideas and listen to others. It is about keeping an open mind (Barbosa 2020). The Stoics of the Roman imperial period share the imperative that education should not focus on erudition for its own sake but contribute to the pursuit of the good life as they define it in philosophical terms (Reydams‐Schils 2010). Rather than retreat from the world, Stoicism’s message calls for the education of man. Stoics believe that the only way to help others develop as members of society is by teaching them (Barbosa 2020). For Stoics, one without wisdom, in the Stoic practical and integrative sense, has an unstable, sick soul. Therefore, a Stoic educational institution literally is an ethical hospital, whose aim is psychical wellbeing by integration through prudential learning (“(PDF) Education as Training for Life: Stoic Teachers as Physicians of the Soul,” n.d.). For Stoics, the aim of life is not just acquisition of knowledge, but also assimilation of knowledge – knowledge that sticks to one’s daily thoughts and activities. Thus, the aim of life is not more wisdom, but practical wisdom (“(PDF) Education as Training for Life: Stoic Teachers as Physicians of the Soul,” n.d.). What is the role of the teacher in Stoic education? Each student must make his/her own effort to learn, but a good teacher can help the student along the right part. Education should not be entrusted too just anybody or anyone. Teaching can be done, not off-hand and randomly, but only by those who are mature and are committed to teaching and who follow reason in the process (Sherman 1973). Stoics thinks that the teacher has an obligation to instruct in virtue (Sherman 1973). The teachers (Stoics called them ‘wise men’) should be seen/ followed as models. Their ideas should be reformulated and consolidated. For Stoics, the student must be actively engaged in his own education (Sherman 1973). With a Stoic teacher assuming the role of soul, education in Stoic principles in a sort of philosophical or cognitive therapy for the psychically ill (“(PDF) Education as Training for Life: Stoic Teachers as Physicians of the Soul,” n.d.). A successful teacher will make a student feel eager to learn more and discover truths for themselves; it is not about blindly accepting what your teacher has told you (Barbosa 2020). The Stoics believe that the best way to teach is by living as an example (Barbosa 2020). You can describe the Stoic model of education: education as self-knowing, the need of logic and critical thinking for informed decision-making, learning as preparation for life, and knowledge for integration in private, local, and global affairs (“(PDF) Education as Training for Life: Stoic Teachers as Physicians of the Soul,” n.d.). There are some other principles of Stoic education: 1) Education has moral aim and studies must be oriented to that aim, 2) though some studies have a higher priority, other must not be neglected, 3) accidental qualities should not be confused with the real marks of intelligence and education, 4) education must be directed and purposeful (Sherman 1973). So, the purpose of education is moral, so moral topics need to be central in any studies (Sherman 1973).

1) Reydams‐Schils, G. 2010. “Philosophy and Education in Stoicism of the Roman Imperial Era.” Oxford Review of Education 36, no. 5 (October): 561–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2010.514435.

2) Sherman, Robert R. 1973. “STOICISM: THE EDUCATION of MAN.” Journal of Thought 8, no. 3: 215–23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42588370?casa_token=l5l3shM_XncAAAAA%3Ak5vJ2z1gUeGfM7lWzGh9m90F7qUewgehMa4en_Hj3F1cXdFtXKQ37SaXiMePwLFa4nu_434qu3_kBwmBT2XgLAG6nasbjuSMtEZGk9mFyQIARe_Dnv1-ZA&seq=1.

3) Barbosa, Carina. 2020. “How Should a Stoic Look at Education?” The Wise Mind. September 25, 2020. https://thewisemind.net/how-should-a-stoic-look-at-education/.

4) “(PDF) Education as Training for Life: Stoic Teachers as Physicians of the Soul.” n.d. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227785388_Education_as_Training_for_Life_Stoic_teachers_as_physicians_of_the_soul.

5) Saunders, Jason Lewis. 2019. “Stoicism | Definition, History, & Influence | Britannica.” In Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Stoicism.

Hobbesian Thought

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English philosopher; he is very known for his formulation of social contract theory. He also wrote a bit about education. Hobbes thinks that universal civic education is necessary. He argues for a universal civic education through a variety of channels (universities, family, and the church) (Bejan 2010). Hobbes thinks that the family is the ‘first school’ of the commonwealth. He argues that the relationship between the father and children served as a model for the later relationship of simple obedience to the sovereign (Bejan 2010). Hobbes doesn’t see education as a right, he argues that is a way to reinforce the power of the sovereign. Because of the role of education in increasing the power of the sovereign, Hobbes thinks that popular education is of paramount political importance for the sovereign authority (Bejan 2010). The sovereign should be the ultimate master in university who will exercise total control over everything. Hobbesian education aims to produce obedient citizens (Bejan 2010). He also thinks that “Education of the people in true doctrine was an essential duty of the sovereign power” (Bejan 2010). Hobbes believes in the importance of education but not from a human rights perspective, he thinks that education will reinforce the sovereign which will lead to peace. Education is important to keeping a state stable and for maintaining civil peace (Anderson 2003, Kabala and Cook 2022). Hobbes believes that education can prevent would be rebels from gathering a following, education can also deal with discontent (Kabala and Cook 2022).

References:

• Bejan, Teresa M. 2010. “Teaching the ‘Leviathan’: Thomas Hobbes on Education.” Oxford Review of Education 36, no. 5: 607–26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25753521.

• Anderson, Jeremy. 2003. “The Role of Education in Political Stability.” Hobbes Studies 16, no. 1: 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1163/187502503x00063.

• Kabala, Boleslaw Z., and Thomas Cook. 2022. “Hobbes and Spinoza on Sovereign Education.” Philosophies 7, no. 1 (January): 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies7010006.

Lockean Thought/English Empiricism

John Locke (1632-1704) was an English philosopher he is an influential Enlightenment thinker; he is also very known for his work on social contract theory. He also wrote about a bit about education. Just as Hobbes, Locke emphasizes the role of education in the preservation of civil order and the stability of society (Androne 2014). In contrary to Hobbes, Locke also thinks that education is important to each individual. Locke argues that the purpose of education is to produce an individual with a sound mind in a sound body to better serve his country (“John Locke” 2020). Locke makes an important distinction between the common man and the gentleman. He thinks that the context of education ought to depend upon one’s station in life (“John Locke” 2020). Locke did not recognize the importance of public schools or coeducational day schools (“Discovering Childhood,” n.d.). Locke is even weary of the influence of ‘schoolboys’ on each other (“Discovering Childhood,” n.d.). Locke thinks that at-home education is superior to the education at school because at home the child is only influenced by the tutor and parents (Gianoutsos 2006). Locke emphases the importance of the tutor, because he plays such a big role in the education of the child (Androne 2014). Locke also points out the role of the parents in educating their children, the parents have a crucial role in their children’s development. Locke thinks that we must take care of the education of our children. He believes that children are born with minds that are like ‘blank slates’(Classroom 2018). He is very optimistic about the transformation power of education, education plays a huge role in how people will behave and act later in life (“Discovering Childhood,” n.d., Gianoutsos 2006). The means and purpose of education become paramount then in how our children become who they become (Classroom 2018).

References:

• Androne, Mihai. 2014. “Notes on John Locke’s Views on Education.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 137, no. July (July): 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.255.

• “John Locke.” 2020. The Roots of Educational Theory. 2020. https://educationalroots.weebly.com/john-locke.html.

• Classroom, Tales from. 2018. “Understanding Why Schools Are the Way They Are: John Locke.” Medium. March 21, 2018. https://talesfromthecla.medium.com/understanding-why-schools-are-the-way-they-are-john-locke-269fd5dbe1d7.

• “Discovering Childhood.” n.d. The National Endowment for the Humanities. https://www.neh.gov/article/discovering-childhood.

• Gianoutsos, Jamie. 2006. “LOCKE and ROUSSEAU: EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION.” The Pulse 4, no. 1. https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php?id=37670.

Scottish Enlightenment

Adam Smith was a Scottish philosopher and economist who next to his important work about political economy also was a key figure in the Scottish enlightenment. David Hume was a Scottish philosopher, historian, and economist, he is known for his influential system of philosophical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism. For Adam Smith education is not a commodity, it’s central to a society (Thomas 2019). Smith thinks that education aside from the development of reason as the learning of socially useful values and therefore contributes to the formation of flourishing society (Thomas 2018, Thomas 2019). Smith believes that it falls to the government to provide basic education because it will not be demanded (Quinn 2013). Education can’t be entirely left to the market forces because it is so central to a flourishing society. In the case of elementary education, he wants as a combination of modest private and more significant public contribution (Thomas 2018, Thomas 2019). Smith argues that the cost of education should be partially borne by the users, but it should be affordable for all. He believes that also a common laborer should be able to send his children to school (Thomas 2018, Thomas 2019). However, Smith argues that the poor also need to contribute a fee towards their children’s education (“Adam Smith on Public Policy: Education” 2014). Smith argues that basic education (reading, writing, and accounting) is important for the poor and that everyone should get basic education (“Adam Smith on Public Policy: Education” 2014). He argues that education should be made compulsory, especially for workers (Thomas 2018, Thomas 2019). Adam Smith gives us a lot of reasons why education is so important for the people and especially the poor. Firstly, he argues that education will improve the lives of the poor (Thomas 2018). Secondly, he thinks that educating the poor is advantageous for a state (Thomas 2018). Thirdly, he believes that education will provide more informed voters (Thomas 2018). Fourthly, he argues that education for the poor is a moral necessity (“Adam Smith on Education: Schooling | Adam Smith Works,” n.d.). Fifthly, he thinks that an educated populace is more decent and orderly and will be less susceptible to fanaticism (“Adam Smith on Education: Schooling | Adam Smith Works,” n.d.). Smith argues that the poor should be encouraged with small premiums to provide education for their children (“Adam Smith on Education: Schooling | Adam Smith Works,” n.d.). Smith also underlines the role of the parents; parents are really important in the early childhood to train their children to become useful members of society (Thomas 2018). He also thinks that adults should receive lifelong education through religious organizations (“Adam Smith on Education: Schooling | Adam Smith Works,” n.d.). Adam Smith has some opinions about teachers. Smith wants teachers to be paid by their students, so that they have the incentive to teach well. In the 1700’s in Scotland paid their teacher directly, he found this arrangement just and careful (“Adam Smith on Public Policy: Education” 2014 ). On certain aspects of education, Adam Smith isn’t clear. For example, he is in favor of public financial education but isn’t clear about how the funds are to be raised and distributed (“Adam Smith on Education: Schooling | Adam Smith Works,” n.d.). David Hume did not write any specific chapter, but he had an unique approach to human learning (David et al. 2017). He advocated for experience-based learning (David et al. 2017). Hume praises education, he highlights its role in the formation of general rules and fostering social conditions that encourage the growth of knowledge and moral virtue (O’Brien 2017). Hume also argues that education molds the kind of society in which knowledge thrives. For Hume also believes that education can also encourage epistemically beneficial forms of skepticism (O’Brien 2017). Hume also thinks that people need an education system that addresses feelings rather than reason (Hume 2016). He believes in the role of public intellectuals instead of university professors (Hume 2016).

References:

Smith

• Thomas, Alex M. 2018. “Adam Smith on the Philosophy and Provision of Education.” Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics 30, no. 1: 105–16. https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jinter/v30y2018i1p105-116.html.

• “Adam Smith on Education: Schooling | Adam Smith Works.” n.d. Www.adamsmithworks.org. https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/adam-smith-on-education-schooling.

• “Adam Smith on Public Policy: Education.” 2014. Libertarianism.org. 2014. https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/adam-smith-public-policy-education.

• Quinn, Kevin. 2013. “ADAM SMITH on EDUCATION.” Critical Review 25, no. 1 (March): 120–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2013.823764.

• Thomas, Alex M. 2019. “Why Adam Smith Favoured Public Education.” The Hindu, January 10, 2019, sec. Comment. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/why-adam-smith-favoured-public-education/article25952878.ece.

Hume

• O’Brien, Dan. 2017. “Hume on Education.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 98, no. April (April): 619–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12194.

• David, On, Hume On, David Hume, B Tomasz, and Stanek. 2017. “Part of the Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education Commons Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Stanek, Tomasz B.” Wisdom in Education 7, no. 1: 3. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1061&context=wie.

• Hume, David. 2016. “David Hume - the Book of Life.” The Book of Life. The Book of Life. October 11, 2016. https://www.theschooloflife.com/thebookoflife/david-hume/.

Rousseau's Thought

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was a Genevan philosopher and writer. He wrote about politics, economy, and education. Rousseau believes that naturalistic education is the best way to educate children. Naturalistic education cherishes inclination instead of habits (Gianoutsos 2006). Unlike Hobbes & Locke, Rousseau thinks that education shouldn’t prepare for citizenship but prepare for manhood and the duties of life (Gianoutsos 2006). Just as Locke, Rousseau wants that the child is educated in isolation not in public institution. Rousseau argues that the purpose of education consisted of preparing the child for no particular social institution but to preserve this child from no particular social institution but to preserve this child from the bad influence of society (“Jean-Jacques Rousseau” 2019). Rousseau’s idea of education is that education should be carried out in harmony with development of the child’s natural capacities by a process of apparently autonomous education (ertram 2018). Just as Locke, Rousseau thinks that education must be individualized but in contrary to Locke he also has a concern for public education (“Jean-Jacques Rousseau on Nature, Wholeness and Education | Infed.org” 2013). Rousseau’s views aren’t gender-neutral, he even writes ‘Women are weak and passive’ (“Jean-Jacques Rousseau” 2019). Women should have another education than men, he emphasizes the sex differences, and that education should be different for them (“Jean-Jacques Rousseau on Nature, Wholeness and Education | Infed.org” 2013).

References:

• Gianoutsos, Jamie. 2006. “LOCKE and ROUSSEAU: EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION.” The Pulse 4, no. 1. https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php?id=37670.

• “Jean-Jacques Rousseau on Nature, Wholeness and Education | Infed.org.” 2013. Infed.org. 2013. https://infed.org/mobi/jean-jacques-rousseau-on-nature-wholeness-and-education/.

• Bertram, Christopher. 2018. “Jean Jacques Rousseau.” Edited by Edward N. Zalta. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/#Educ.

• “Jean-Jacques Rousseau.” 2019. The Roots of Educational Theory. 2019. https://educationalroots.weebly.com/jean-jacques-rousseau.html.

Kantianism

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher and an important Enlightenment thinker. Kant’s philosophy of education is like Rousseau’s in being grounded in a philosophy of history (“Education, History of Philosophy of - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy” n.d.). Kant emphasizes the need for education and the education of the educator (Munzel 2003). Kant understands education as an ordered process of core discipline, instruction, and formation through enculturating, civilizing, and moralizing (Roth and Formosa 2018). Kant separates education between moral & physical education. Moral and physical education teach us how to live an independence existence (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815010150). Kant believes that a person only can be a person with education, so a person needs education (Bayrak 2015). He states that all humans need education, education makes us human (Sticker and Bakhurst 2021). Through education we can transform ‘our animal nature into human nature’ (Roth and Formosa 2018). For Kant the core educational aim is the pursuit of moral perfection and counter the moral corruption (Roth and Formosa 2018, “Education, History of Philosophy of - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy” n.d.). Kant gave a lot of negative comments about the intellectual capabilities of women. To Kant, woman can’t talk about serious subjects, such as politics (Sticker and Bakhurst 2021). He even calls them ‘second-class citizens and domestic animals’ (Sticker and Bakhurst 2021).

References:

• Bayrak, Yunus. 2015. “Kant’s View on Education.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 174, no. February (February): 2713–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.956.

• Roth, Klas, and Paul Formosa. 2018. “Kant on Education and Evil—Perfecting Human Beings with an Innate Propensity to Radical Evil.” Educational Philosophy and Theory, October (October), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2019.1520357.

• Munzel, G. Felicitas. 2003. “Kant on Moral Education, or ‘Enlightenment’ and the Liberal Arts.” The Review of Metaphysics 57, no. 1: 43–73. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20131938?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.

• Sticker, Martin, and David Bakhurst. 2021. “Kant on Education and Improvement: Themes and Problems.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 55, no. 6 (December): 909–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12631.

• “Education, History of Philosophy of - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” n.d. Www.rep.routledge.com. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/education-history-of-philosophy-of/v-1/sections/rousseau-and-kant.

Millian Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was an English philosopher and Member of Parliament. He wrote about social and political theory and therefore also about education. Mill was a supporter of state provision of popular and secular education at national scale. He supports school for everyone (Silva 2021). Mill thinks that the state under certain circumstances should supervise education guarantying its quantity and quality (Silva 2021). State education intervention was only deemed necessary as long as the state did not monopolize education (Silva 2021). However, the state should interfere in order to ensure more social justice and equal education opportunities (Silva 2021). Mill also claims that the state should make education compulsory, he advocated the necessity of compulsory schooling, universalization even obligatory (Carbone 1983, Thi Xiem 2018). Mill emphasizes the importance of education, because Mill thinks that education is a condition for individuals to be able to protect their own right of liberty and that education also plays an important role in building democracy (Thi Xiem 2018). So, education is the key to progress of people’s mind and to the progress of the country (Silva 2021). Next to the state also parents have a great responsibility regarding education (Thi Xiem 2018). Mill argues that it is the father’s duty to secure education for their child (Silva 2021). Mill argues that humans have the right to study and enjoy general education (Thi Xiem 2018). Therefore, he advocated for free education and also education for women. Mill fought against all sorts of discrimination; a good example is the barriers to education for women (Macleod 2016).

References:

• Silva, Elisabete Mendes. 2021. “John Stuart Mill on Education and Progress.” Anglo Saxonica 19, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.5334/as.44.

• Carbone, Peter F. 1983. “John Stuart Mill on Freedom, Education, and Social Reform.” The Journal of Educational Thought (JET) / Revue de La Pensée Éducative 17, no. 1: 3–11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23767850.

• Thi Xiem, Nguyen. 2018. “John Stuart Mill’s Liberal Thought on Education and the Dissemination of Education in Enforcing the Right of Liberty.” American Journal of Educational Research6, no. 5 (May): 570–77. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-6-5-33.

• Macleod, Christopher. 2016. “John Stuart Mill (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford.edu. August 25, 2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/.

Transcendentalism

Ralph Waldo Emerson was a philosopher from Massachusetts, involved with the branch of philosophy which is known as transcendentalism. Transcendentalist philosophers believed that “the basis of Transcendentalist thinking is the idea of a metaphysical correspondence between nature and spirit, as chiefly expressed by Emerson” (Williamson & Null, 2008, 387). Transcendentalists believe that humans and nature are very closely intertwined with one another. These philosophers were largely from New England.

Emerson’s view on education that he is most well known for is his strong belief that cooperative education is the most beneficial type of education for the student. Emerson believed that a teacher’s job was more than just giving students information, he believed that “they should provide a learning environment that is conducive to creativity and fostering the individual interests of students… Emerson realized that teaching should be engaging not only for children, but for teachers as well” (Williamson & Null, 2008, 382-383). To Emerson, education was something that should equally involve both the students and the teachers.

The American Scholar, by Ralph Waldo Emerson, was a speech that was later published as a book, in which Emerson discusses being a scholar in relation with his transcendentalist views. In this book he writes that a scholar is educated “by nature, by books, and by action” (Emerson, 1837, 84). Emerson believed that a well educated individual, a scholar, learned best, not by attending a traditional school, but rather by becoming educated through nature, books, and doing.

In line with traditional transcendentalist beliefs, Emerson thought nature was one of the best ways for people to receive an education. To philosophers like Emerson, nature is full of lessons to be learned, “The natural world, combining the flowing rivers and steady stars, is a mixture of lessons about stability amid careless fluidity” (Warnick, 2007, 99). Emerson believed that there were four main ways for people to learn from nature. The first way is that “nature offers the possibility of solitude and, with this solitude, comes silence. The silence allows for the emergence of ‘voices’ that are otherwise marginalized in the dominant technological society” (Warnick, 2007, 95). Being in nature and away from society which is becoming more and more technological allows for people to be educated through the silence and solitude that is provided in nature. The second way Emerson outlined that people can learn from nature is by the “unique possibilities for the development of moral thought through distinctive nontechnological metaphors” (Warnick, 2007, 95). Being in nature, away from technology, allows people the opportunity to develop their moral thoughts without having any interferences. The third way is that “nature forces us both to see difference and to develop our sense of ‘worship,’ that is, it promotes a feeling that there is an Other, a ‘not-me,’ who is worthy of respect” (Warnick, 2007, 95). Similarly to the first two points that Emerson makes, this reason shows that being in nature and learning from nature gives people the chance to realize that there are other beings in the universe, aside from humans, that are also worthy of receiving respect from humans. Finally, the fourth way that Emerson says that people can learn from nature is “a proper educative relationship with nature allows us to escape the ethical dissonance that can come from being complicit in the destructive forces of modern economies, and, at the same time, to develop our talents as human beings” (Warnick, 2007, 95). Here, Emerson is saying that living in nature and learning from nature allows people to escape from typical society and develop themselves and their talents as humans. Once again, he continues making his point that, when in nature, people have the opportunity to connect more deeply with nature and with themselves. Through these, he is asserting that people have the right to receive an education, even if not necessarily through the traditional means of a classroom education. Emerson was an enthusiast of both nature and education, so it makes sense that he believed that nature is one of the best ways for a person to become educated.

Emerson once spoke about the rights that he believed women should have access to. Emerson, “called openly for women to receive their ‘one half of the world,’ their ‘full rights of all kinds,- to education, to employment, to equal laws of property, equal rights in marriage, in the exercise of the professions, and of suffrage.’” (Harvard Square Library). Emerson believed that women, like men already had, should have equal rights to these things, including the right to an education. He was a believer that both men and women should have equal rights to these important things, including education.

Henry David Thoreau was also a transcendentalist philosopher from Massachusetts that held strong beliefs on educational matters. After graduating from Harvard, Thoreau found himself working as a teacher and eventually, his brother, John Thoreau, began running the Concord school, so Henry came along with him to work as a teacher there (Ryan, 1969). Thoreau thought that schools should focus more on how to live a fulfilling life, rather than merely teaching students how to make money and make a living. Of Thoreau, it has been said that, “Often he returns to the theme that the schools teach how to make a living, and not how to live… Thoreau wanted an education ‘rooted’ to life, an education that would school man to nature, for there man would find himself” (Ryan, 1969, 55). Despite his thoughts on what the state of schooling was during his lifetime, he still knew that schools were incredibly important and did not think that they should be closed, rather that they should be structured differently.

The majority of Thoreau’s life as a philosopher was involved with education. In his book Walden, he writes about his time working as a teacher, “As I did not teach for the good of my fellow-men, but simply for a livelihood, this was a failure” (Thoreau, 1910, 111). Of this Walden quote, “Although Thoreau is characteristically deceptive about his ideals here, the passage does indicate his conviction that he was not cut out for institutionalized teaching, Nevertheless, the education of man was one of the focal interests of his life from his college years to his last days” (Ryan, 1969, 54). Thoreau was dedicated to education, although not in the traditional sense of education that takes place in a typical classroom environment.

Thoreau also advocated for the right to education for adults. He wanted there to be more educational opportunities for adults, rather than discontinuing education once students graduate from high school. In Walden he says, “It is time that we had uncommon schools, that we did not leave off our education when we begin to be men and women. It is time that villages were universities, and their elder inhabitants the fellows of universities, with leisure-if they are indeed so well off-to pursue liberal studies the rest of their lives” (Thoreau, 1910, 171). Thoreau wanted there to be better access to educational institutes for adults that have already completed their traditional years of education. He began referring to the schools that he wanted to be implemented for adults as ‘uncommon schools’, in a reference to Horace Mann’s common school movement. On the matter of the lack of adult learning institutions, “Thoreau was deeply concerned with the lack of educational opportunities available to adults… He was enraged by Concord having spent sixteen thousand dollars on a new town hall, ‘a hall for our political meetings mainly, and nothing to educate ourselves who are grown up.’” (Ryan, 1969, 56). Thoreau wanted more town money to go towards educating the adults in our society, rather than spending money on things like new government buildings.

Thoreau also refused to implement any form of corporal punishment in his classroomm which often came under criticism from other educators, and eventually led to him leaving education because “he was unwilling to punish pupils by whipping” (Wilson, 1962, 19). During Thoreau’s time, it was almost expected that students would receive a whipping as a form of corporal punishment when they misbehaved. Thoreau, however, did not believe in the use of corporal punishment in the classroom.

When speaking of rights, Thoreau believed that the rights of the people were more important than the rights of the government. Thoreau believed that “the power of government used by politicians for ends which were usually deplorable. Since its power was derived from individuals originally, their rights were of necessity superior to those conceded to the state” (Madison, 1944, 115). It was Thoreau’s belief that the rights of the people, such as the right to education were more important in comparison with the rights of the government. Furthermore, Thoreau, “In denouncing the state he aimed not at its destruction but at its improvement: he magnified the rights of the individual in the hope of assuring him the freedom to which he was entitled” (Madison, 1994, 122). He believed wholeheartedly that the rights of individual people were more important than those of the government.

Louisa May Alcott, famously known as the author of the novel Little Women, was also a transcendentalist, and advocate for the importance of education. Her father, Amos Bronson Alcott was also a transcendentalist and a teacher, who passed many of his beliefs down to his daughter. Both Louisa and Bronson were influential transcendentalists who had impacts on education as we now know it. Both Alcotts “were red-hot abolitionists as well as feminists. They were outspoken and unwavering in their belief that men and women, regardless of race, deserved equal rights and opportunities” (Seiple, 2019). The Alcotts were very liberal and open minded, believing that everyone regardless of their race or their gender should have access to the same opportunities, and these beliefs extended to the realm of education as well.

Louisa’s real life transcendentalist views on education often translated over into her fictional works, “Her father’s ideas on schooling very tangibly influenced Louisa Alcott, as we can clearly see in her children’s stories, for education is one of her favorite themes” (Hamblen, 1970, 84). Her transcendentalist views on education never strayed far from her in her writing, whether it be her writing for adults or for children. In fact, her most popular book, “Little Women, with its emphasis on growth and development shows clearly the distinctive Alcott thinking” (Hamblen, 1970, 84). The Alcotts had a view on education that was fundamentally different from many other philosophers of the time.

Amos Bronson Alcott believed that “Pleasure should be associated with learning, Alcott said, and lessons should be drawn from the everyday lives of the boys and girls. The teacher must teach from the heart, must be patient, genial, gentle. ‘Affectionate and familiar conversation is the chief avenue to the infant mind,’ he wrote” (Hamblen, 1970, 82-83). Alcott was ahead of his time with very modern views on education and how teachers should be teaching.

Amos Bronson Alcott was one of the first educators to introduce things like music and field trips into schools, which we still see widely in schools today. He “was singular among the Transcendentalists in boldly embodying his ideals. In his schools he introduced art, music, nature study, field trips, and physical education into the curriculum, while banishing corporal punishment” (Brown, 1999). He was similar to other transcendentalists in that the majority of them supported the end of corporal punishment being used in schools. Alcott utilized these ideals during his career in education, which began in 1828 in Boston, Massachusetts, when he opened an infant school. In this school, “he used tangible objects to teach addition and subtraction, encouraged marching and dancing to music” (Stiem, 1960, 8). Many of the teaching techniques that he implemented in his classroom are the basis of modern education practices today.

During his career as an educator, he also served as the superintendent of the Concord school district, and later he went on to found the Concord School of Philosophy, both in Concord, Massachusetts. He was also the founder of the Temple School in Boston, Massachusetts. Alcott, like other transcendentalists of his time, undertook education as something that not only children needed the right to, but also adults. Thus, the formation of the Concord School of Philosophy, which served as an institute for adults to be educated. This school allowed the attendance of any adult who wanted to attend, “The circular further announces that ‘No preliminary examinations are required, and no limitation of age, sex, or resident in Concord will be prescribed’.” (Warren, 1929, 202). This meant that any adult who desired to receive an education at the Concord School of Philosophy would be allowed to do so.

Sources:

Amy Williamson and J. Wesley Null, “Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Educational Philosophy as a Foundation for Cooperative Learning” American Educational History Journal 35, No. 2 (2008) 381-392

Ralph Waldo Emerson, The American Scholar, New York: The Laurentian Press, 1837

Bryan R. Warnick, “Emerson and the Education of Nature” Ohio Valley Philosophy of Education Society 38, 2007 95-103

Harvard Square Library, “Ralph Waldo Emerson and Women’s Rights: Legacy of Emerson Series” https://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/emerson-and-womens-rights/ (accessed 01 March 2022)

Kevin Ryan, “Henry David Thoreau: Critic, Theorist, and Practitioner of Education” The School Review 77, No. 1 (March 1969) 54-63

Lawrence Wilson, “Thoreau on Education” History of Education Quarterly 2, No. 1 (March 1962) 19-29

Henry David Thoreau, Walden, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & co. Publishers, 1910

Rick Anthony Furtak, “Henry David Thoreau”, 2019, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thoreau/ (accessed 25 February 2022)

Charles A. Madison, “Henry David Thoreau: Transcendentalist Individualist” Ethics 54, No. 2 (January 1944) 110-123

Abigail Ann Hamblen, “Louisa May Alcott and the ‘Revolution’ in Education” The Journal of General Education 22, No. 2 (July 1970) 81-92

Samantha Seiple, “How Louisa May Alcott Landed on the Front Lines of the Civil War”, 2019, Literary Hub, https://lithub.com/how-louisa-may-alcott-landed-on-the-front-lines-of-the-civil-war/ (accessed 04 March 2022).

Amy Belding Brown, “Amos Bronson Alcott”, 1999, Virginia Commonwealth University, American Transcendentalism Web https://archive.vcu.edu/english/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/alcott (accessed 07 March 2022).

Marjorie Stiem, “Beginning of Modern Education: Bronson Alcott” Peabody Journal of Education 38, No. 1 (July 1960) 7-9

Austin Warren, “The Concord School of Philosophy” The New England Quarterly 2, No. 2 (April 1929) 199-233

Marxism

Karl Marx was a German philosopher, economist, and sociologist. Karl Marx wrote very little, directly, on education, what he wrote on the subject was scattered through his work (“Karl Marx and Education | Infed.org,” n.d., Banfield n.d.). Marx thinks that the political system, the legal system, the family, the press, the education system was all rooted in the final analysis, to the class nature of society, which in turn was a reflection of the economic base (“Karl Marx and Education | Infed.org,” n.d.). Marx believes that the economic base or infrastructure generated or had built upon it a superstructure that kept it functions (“Karl Marx and Education | Infed.org,” n.d.). Marx believes that the education system, as part of the superstructure, therefore, reflected the economic base and served to reproduce it (“Karl Marx and Education | Infed.org,” n.d.). Marx sees education as a class struggle (Banfield n.d.). However, Marx argues that education is also a tool for a better life. The proletariat can use the education to battle the ruling class. Therefore, Marx wanted an expanded public education for the working class (Kellner, n.d.). According to traditional Marxists, school teaches children to passively obey authority and it reproduces and legitimates class inequality (Thompson 2017). They see the education system as working in the interest of ruling class elites. According to the Marxist perspective on education, the system performs three functions for these elites: 1. The reproduction of class inequality. 2. The legitimation of class inequality. 3. Teaching the skills future capitalist employers need. (Thompson 2017).

References:

• Thompson, Karl. 2017. “The Marxist Perspective on Education.” ReviseSociology. May 3, 2017. https://revisesociology.com/2015/01/27/marxist-perspective-education/.

• “Karl Marx and Education | Infed.org.” n.d. https://infed.org/mobi/karl-marx-and-education/.

• Banfield, Grant. n.d. “Marx and Education: Working with the Revolutionary Educator I.” Accessed April 4, 2022. http://www.jceps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/13-3-2.pdf.

• Kellner, Douglas. n.d. “Marxian Perspectives on Educational Philosophy: From Classical Marxism to Critical Pedagogy.” https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/marxianperspectivesoneducation.pdf.

Early Sociology

Emile Durkheim was born in 1858 and died in 1917. He is often called as one of the ‘great sociologists’ and one of the makers of ‘modern sociology’ (Ottaway 1968). Durkheim makes an important distinction between education and pedagogy. Education is the active process of educating the young; the influence exerted upon children by parents and teachers. Pedagogy on the other hand is a reflection on education a methodical thought applied to the process of education sociologists’ and one of the makers of ‘modern sociology’ (Ottaway 1968, Patel, n.d.). Why is education so important for Durkheim? Durkheim links the importance of education with society. Durkheim believes that education was the answer to the problems and challenges of that time (Dill 2007). What were the problems in society for Durkheim? Durkheim was concerned with the radical individualism that was taking new forms through industrialization and specialized labor (Dill 2007). For Durkheim modern society was drifting towards anomie – detachment from obligation to other beyond the self – due largely to occupational specialization. Forced division of labor eliminated mutual dependence and laid the groundwork for anomie (Dill 2007). Education is performing two major functions in advanced industrial societies: Firstly, transmitting the shared values of society and simultaneously teaching the specialized skills for an economy based on a specialized skills for an economy division of labor (Thompson 2018). Durkheim thought that schools would offer the social cohesion and shared experience that were lacking in a fragmented and mechanized world (Dill 2007). He sees schools a microcosmos of society, socialising the young through its environment for participation in public life (Dill 2007). School is the only institution capable of preparing children for membership of society – it does this by enforcing a set of rules which one applied to all children, and children learn to interact with all other children on the basis of these shared rules – it thus acts like a society in miniature (Dill 2007). The conditions of the student not only determine the type of education received but also determine the level of achievement of the pupil within a given school (Ottaway 1968). For Durkheim all cannot have the same education, and at some stage educational provision must become diversified, because of the variety of talents and the division of labor, which leads to specialization of training in accord with future occupational function (Ottaway 1968). Important to understand in the view of Durkheim on education is the that he sees education as the result of given social conditions and in harmony with them when education changes it is because society itself has changed (Ottaway 1968). In Emile Durkheim’s view, educational system reflects underlying changes in society, which naturally seeks to reproduce its collectively held values, beliefs, norms, and conditions through its con institution (“Durkheim and Educational Systems,” n.d.). As a society’s collective values change, the educational system reflects their changes (“Durkheim and Educational Systems,” n.d.). So, each society uniquely approaches education for its own purposes and thus it is always embedded in a particular cultural context. Education which is determined by the society in which it is practiced, can be studied by the scientific methods of sociology (Patel, n.d.). The common thread for all societies including the modern one, was to see education as the mechanism to transmit knowledge from one generation to the next (Dill 2007). According to Durkheim, in a society there needs to be a sufficient degree of homogeneity in a society for a society to survive (Dill 2007, “Durkheim and Educational Systems,” n.d., Abbott 1981). Education does this by instilling of social solidarity in the individual which involves instilling a sense of commitment to the importance of working towards society’s goal and a feeling that the society is more important than the individual (Dill 2007). Durkheim saw education as society’s means of guaranteeing continuation of its existence by assimilating new individuals into it (Abbott 1981). Durkheim is especially interested in the social function of education, as the father of functionalism (Davies 1994). Next to the function of reinforcing the society, is the teaching of specialized skills required for a complex division of labor (Dill 2007). School thus necessary in modern societies is that social solidarity in industrial societies in based largely on the interdependence of specialized skills – the manufacture of a single product requires the combination of a variety of specialists. In other words, solidarity is based on co-operation between people with very different skill sets – and school is the perfect place for children to learn to get on with people of different backgrounds (Thompson 2018). Education can be seen as the mechanism for cultural and societal transmission (Dill 2007). Durkheim has some interesting views on discipline and punishment. With regard to punishment and discipline in school life Durkheim’s principles are gentle, civilized and enlightened and ahead of some contemporary opinions (Ottaway 1968). Durkheim believes that discipline in the class is not simply a method for the teacher to keep order; it is an instrument for developing morality (Patel, n.d.). He does not think that good habits can be imposed by force, and he is strongly against corporal punishment (Ottaway 1968, Patel, n.d.). However, Durkheim argued that school rules should strictly enforced- with a series of punishments for those who broke the school rules which reflected the seriousness of the damage done to the social group by the child who broke the rules (Dill 2007). Durkheim also believed that by explaining why punishments were given for rule breakers, children would come to learn to exercise self-discipline not only because of fear of punishments, but also because they could see the damage their deviant behavior did to the group as a whole (Dill 2007). Durkheim believes that discipline must have a quality of authority, but is not a case of a brute, wholly physical authority (“Main Currents in Sociological Thought: Volume 2: Durkheim, Pareto, Weber” n.d.). To conclude in modern societies the goal of education will not only to discipline individuals but also to promote the full expression of their personalities and so to create in each of them a sense of autonomy, reflection, and choice (“Main Currents in Sociological Thought: Volume 2: Durkheim, Pareto, Weber” n.d.).

Sources Durkheim:

• Ottaway, A. K. C. 1968. “Durkheim on Education.” British Journal of Educational Studies 16, no. 1: 5–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/3119196.

• Dill, Jeffrey S. 2007. “Durkheim and Dewey and the Challenge of Contemporary Moral Education.” Journal of Moral Education 36, no. 2 (June): 221–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240701325357.

• Davies, Brian. 1994. “Durkheim and the Sociology of Education in Britain.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 15, no. 1 (January): 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569940150101.

• Thompson, Karl. 2018. “Karl Thompson.” ReviseSociology. August 21, 2018. https://revisesociology.com/2017/08/22/functionalist-durkheim-role-education/. • “Durkheim and Educational Systems.” n.d. Www.criticism.com. https://www.criticism.com/philosophy/durkheim-on-education.html.

• Abbott, Ann A. 1981. “Durkheim’s Theory of Education: A Case for Mainstreaming.” Peabody Journal of Education 58, no. 4: 235–41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1491840.

• Patel, Sujata. n.d. “EMILE DURKHEIM’S THEORY of EDUCATION Role Name Affiliation National Coordinator Subject Coordinator.” https://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/S000033SO/P000300/M013098/ET/145258942902ET_N.pdf.

• “Main Currents in Sociological Thought: Volume 2: Durkheim, Pareto, Weber.” n.d. Routledge & CRC Press. Accessed April 4, 2022. https://www.routledge.com/Main-Currents-in-Sociological-Thought-Volume-2-Durkheim-Pareto-Weber/Aron/p/book/9780815348207.

Pragmatism

John Dewey was an American philosopher and one of the most notable founders of philosophical pragmatism, along with being an educational reformer. Dewey began his professional career when he joined the staff at the University of Chicago, however, while being in Chicago, he “found himself becoming more of a populist, more of a socialist, more sympathetic to the settlement house pioneered by Jane Addams, and more skeptical of his childhood Christianity. He would conclude that a changing America needed different schools” (Gibbon, 2019). It was here that Dewey began to develop his beliefs about education. Dewey was also a firm disbeliever when it came to “the authoritarian and social hierarchy imposed by the division of thinking and doing: the values implicit in science demanded the construction of a democratic community of problem solvers” (Tomlinson, 1997, 366). This belief ended up being central when it came to his thoughts about education, “Nowhere did Dewey promote this message of social intelligence more urgently than in the debates surrounding the design of America’s most important engineering project- the public school” (Tomlinson, 1997, 366). John Dewey had very progressive thoughts when it came to education, which is showcased here.

John Dewey also held the belief that science was one of the main ways in which humans would be able to make a better life for themselves. Tomlinson says that Dewey, “was passionately committed to science as a universal tool of human betterment, and believed that when applied to any domain, including education, it would bring haphazard and confusing events under intelligent control” (Tomlinson, 367). Dewey thought that science, especially in relation to the field of education would lead to more highly intelligent people, which would then lead to less chaos and confusing things happening in the world.

Another one of Dewey’s beliefs when it comes to education is that each student has different needs and teachers need to realize this and adapt to the needs of each student. Dewey thought “a democratic society must be mobile and dynamic; it is a society in which teachers know that what works for one student might not work for another… a democratic society is not one that makes provisions for equal participation in its good for all its members” (Devi et al., 2018, 1549). This means that all students have the right to receive an education in the manner that works best for them, and it is the teachers job to be flexible and work with their students on that. It is important that people not only are able to exercise their right to an education, but also that they receive an education that is conducive to how they personally learn best.

According to Dewey, “the most important educational question: How, if not by ordinary classroom listening and reading, can experience be conveyed - passed from one generation to the next?” (Waks, 2011, 194). Dewey believed that listening and reading in the classroom was the best way through which students could learn, and pass experiences and knowledge between generations.

One of Dewey’s most well-known works is his book Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. This book focuses on various topics in relation to democracy and education, as the title suggests. When talking about the goals of education in this book, Dewey writes, “for it assumed that the aim of education is to enable individuals to continue their education- or that the object and reward of learning is continued capacity for growth” (Dewey, 1916, 117).

Dewey goes on, in Democracy and Education, to say “Since education is not a means to living, but is identical with the operation of living a life which is fruitful and inherently significant, the only ultimate value which can be set up is just the process of living itself” (Dewey, 1916, 281). By saying this, Dewey is acknowledging the fact that people need to have the right to an education in order to live a meaningful life, and in order to be able to make money for themselves. Education is the gateway by which people can make a better life for themselves and escape things like poverty.

Dewey’s work with philosophy and education is so intertwined that it has been said that “Dewey claimed that his writings on education summed up his entire philosophical position. For Dewey, all philosophy was philosophy of education” (Legg & Hookway, 2021). Dewey was very passionate about education, so much so that it would be the thing he was continually remembered for after his death.

William James was another prominent early philosopher in the field of pragmatism, and also a psychologist. James also had ideas regarding the right to education. James is most well known for his work in psychology, as he taught one of the first psychology classes at Harvard University. When James first began his career in philosophy and psychology, psychology was merely a discipline within the umbrella of philosophy. Because James was a prominent figure in multiple fields, “his educational contributions are so intricately bound up with his psychology that it is impossible adequately to treat the one without the other, no matter which we are discussing… he is, in short, primarily, though not exclusively, an educational psychologist” (Baldwin, 1911, 374). James was able to combine his interest in multiple fields, and has largely left his legacy as an educational psychologist.

William James’ work in psychology and, more importantly, educational psychology, was extremely influential, and continues to be in modern times. Many of James’ writings and beliefs influenced his fellow psychologists and philosophers, and in turn influenced their work, especially in the field of education. One of the people whom was inspired by his work was John Dewey, “In 1903 John Dewey referred to James’ Principles as the “spiritual progenitor” of the progressive education movement that Dewey was launching at the University of Chicago” (Pajares, 2003, 58-59 ) The two men’s work often went hand in hand with one another as they were two of the earliest philosophers endorsing pragmatism in the United States. It has been said that “educational reforms inspired by Dewey were influenced by James’ functional and pluralistic psychology, and James’ ‘democratic temperament,’ as well as his argument that education should serve as the aims of democracy, also found its way into Dewey’s movement” (Pajares, 2003, 59). James served as an influence to Dewey, and Dewey and James, together, often serve as influences for other philosophers and educational reformers.

Pragmatism was a large influence on James and his beliefs, “James’ belief in pragmatism subsequently shaped his perspective on the right to believe, religion, free will, and the meaning of life” (Ruhl, 2020). Pragmatism was an important aspect that molded the beliefs of William James. While James did not say anything explicitly about the right to education in particular, he did have thoughts about education and rights separately. He was very passionate about the right to believe, in particular. He wrote on this topic extensively, “James later wrote that he should have called the essay ‘the right to believe,’ to indicate his intent to justify holding certain beliefs in certain circumstances, not to claim that we can (or should) believe things simply by an act of will” (Goodman, 2021). James believed that people had the right to believe the things that they do, given that they are reasonable beliefs to have.

Sources:

Peter Gibbon, “John Dewey: Portrait of a Proressive Thinker” Humanities: The Magazine of the National Endowment for the Humanities, 40, No. 2 (Spring 2019). https://www.neh.gov/article/john-dewey-portrait-progressive-thinker (accessed 18 February 2022).

Stephen Tomlinson, “Edward Lee Thorndike and John Dewey on the Science of Education” Oxford Review of Education 23, No. 3 (September 1997) 365-383

David Hildebrand, “John Dewey”, 2018, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey/ (accessed 18 February 2022).

Sakshi Sharma, Rajesh Devi, and Jyoti Kumari, “Pragmatism in Education” International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research” 5, No. 1 (January 2018) 1549-1554

Leonard J. Waks, “John Dewey on Listening and Friendship in School and Society” Educational Theory 61, No. 2 (2011) 191-205

John Dewey, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, Norwood, Massachusetts: The Macmillan Company, 1916

Catherine Legg and Christopher Hookway, “Pragmatism”, 2021, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=pragmatism (accessed 23 February 2022)

Russell Goodman, “William James”, 2021, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james/ (accessed 22 February 2022).

Harvard University Department of Psychology, “William James”, 2022, harvard.edu https://psychology.fas.harvard.edu/people/william-james (accessed 22 February 2022)

Bird T. Baldwin “William James’ Contributions to Education” Journal of Educational Psychology 2, No. 7 (1911) 369-382

Frank Pajares, “William James: Our Father Who Begat Us” in Educational Psychology: A Century of Contributions eds. Barry J. Zimmerman and Dale H. Schunk (Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2003) 41-64

Charlotte Ruhl, “William James Biography and Contributions to Psychology”, 2020, Simply Psychology https://www.simplypsychology.org/william-james.html (accessed 24 February 2022)

Weberian Thought

Max Weber was a German sociologist and historian. Weber did a lot of research about the relation and interaction between the educational system and the religion, political and economic institutions (Samier 2002). Weber holds dear the classic liberal position of autonomy of education from the influence of the state as a way of ensuring a healthy, functional, independently thinking college educated population (Rao and Singh 2018). Weber was scared for government interventions in universities but also for the increasing transformation of the university organizationally into a market-place actor, he even called them capitalistic enterprises (Samier 2002, “Weber Diagnosed the Ills of the Modern University and Prescribed the Cure – Chad Wellmon | Aeon Essays,” n.d). Weber had also other worries about the state of the universities (“Weber Diagnosed the Ills of the Modern University and Prescribed the Cure – Chad Wellmon | Aeon Essays,” n.d). He saw some structural problems: terrible teaching, workplace discrimination, exploitation of the labor force, bad hiring process (“Weber Diagnosed the Ills of the Modern University and Prescribed the Cure – Chad Wellmon | Aeon Essays,” n.d).

References:

• Rao, S. Srinivasa, and Smriti Singh. 2018. “Max Weber’s Contribution to the Sociology of Education.” Contemporary Education Dialogue 15, no. 1 (January): 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973184917744964.

• Samier, Eugenie. 2002. “Weber on Education and Its Administration: Prospects for Leadership in a Rationalized World.” Educational Management & Administration 30, no. 1: 27–45. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ639083.

• “Weber Diagnosed the Ills of the Modern University and Prescribed the Cure – Chad Wellmon | Aeon Essays.” n.d. Aeon. https://aeon.co/essays/weber-diagnosed-the-ills-of-the-modern-university-and-prescribed-the-cure.

Process Philosophy

Process philosophy is a 20th-century school of Western philosophy that emphasizes the elements of becoming, change, and novelty in experienced reality; it opposes the traditional Western philosophical stress on being, permanence, and uniformity (“Process Philosophy,” n.d.). Foremost among the many modern thinkers who have contributed to process philosophy have been Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead (“Process Philosophy,” n.d.). Henri Bergson didn’t really write a lot about education so will focus here on the interesting works of Alfred North Whitehead. Alfred North Whitehead was an English mathematician, philosopher of science, and metaphysician (Evans 1998). Whitehead’s philosophy of education emphasizes the idea that a good life is most profitable thought of as an educated or civilized life. As we think, we life. Thus, it is only as we improve our thoughts that we improve our lives (Irvine 1996). There is only one subject-matter for education and that is life in all its manifestations (Whitehead 1959). Education for Whitehead is configured, he thinks that ‘The actual world is progress and process is the becoming of actual entities’ (Tamboukou 2016). This the main thesis of process psychology. Whitehead sees education as a temporal, growth-oriented, Whitehead’s most commonly known educational concept is that of the three stages of growth. These are called the stage of romance, the stage of precision, and the stage of generalization (Evans 1998, Whitehead 1967 & “Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training,” n.d.). Education should consist in continual repetition of such cycles. Romance is the first moment in the educational experience. All rich educational experiences begin with an immediate emotional involvement on the part of the learner. The primary acquisition of knowledge involves freshness, enthusiasm, and enjoyment of learning. The stage of precision concerns “exactness of formulation”, rather than the immediacy and breadth of relations involved in the romantic phase (“Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training,” n.d.). Precision is discipline in the various languages and grammars of discrete subject matters, particularly science and technical subjects, including logic and spoken languages (“Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training,” n.d.). Generalization, the last rhythmic element of the learning process, is the incorporation of romance and precision into some general context of serviceable ideals and classification. It is the moment of educational completeness and fruition, in which general ideas as, one may say, a philosophical outlook, both integrate the feelings and thoughts of the earlier moments of growth and prepare the way for fresh experiences of excitement and romance, signaling a new beginning to the educational process (“Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training,” n.d.). It is important to realize that there three rhythmic moments of the educational process characterize all stages of development, although each is typically associated with one period of growth (“Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training,” n.d.). Whitehead talks about the standardization. Education fails when it is locked into standardization when it should be focused on personalization. Each student is unique in his or her abilities, and in the particular forms of ‘intelligence’ that bring him or her joy and can help him or her contribute to the well being of the world (“Whitehead and Twelve Principles of Education,” n.d.). The students are ‘alive’, and the purpose of education is to stimulate and guide their self-development (Whitehead 1967). The ultimate aim of education should be the development within students an urge towards new creative adventures (Jones 2006); From the very beginning of his education, the child should experience the joy of discovery. The discovery is that general ideas give an understanding of that stream of events which pours through his life, which is his life (Whitehead 1967). He emphasizes that we should introduce the main ideas which are introduced into a child’s education be few and important (Whitehead 1959). Another important aim in education for Whitehead: We must stop thinking about learning and teaching with models that identify students with stupid particles and classroom space with an insulating vacuum. We must consider the content we are teaching as well, so that we do not indoctrinate our students with a misguided savage individualism (Brumbaugh, n.d.). One of the most important parts of the educational philosophy of Whitehead is his battle against ‘inert ideas’. He thinks that education should pay more attention to the appreciation of concrete things (Brumbaugh, n.d.). Inert knowledge is wat traditional education mainly produces, and therefore it is necessary “to eradicate the fatal disconnection of subjects which kills the vitality of our modern curriculum” (Riffert 2005). The only use of knowledge of the past is to equip us for the present (Whitehead 1967). Whitehead believes that inert ideas is not only useless: it is above all things, harmful (Whitehead 1959). The transfer of inert knowledge must be avoided at all costs (Jones 2006). According to Whitehead, probably the worst severe mistake is the sometimes implicitly held conviction that students “progress is steady” uniform advance from the elementary stages of the subject to the most advanced level which the student attains, a movement containing no changes in the kind of progress and no changes in pace (Riffert 2005). Linear, non-cyclic education ends up in failure because it is undertaken “without rhythm and without stimulus of intermediate success and without concentration” (Riffert 2005). Whitehead advises that we should not teach many subject areas, but what we teach, we should thoroughly (Jones 2006, Riffert 2005). Whitehead also emphasizes the disciplinary fragmentation (“Whitehead and Twelve Principles of Education,” n.d.). Whitehead criticizes modern compartmentalization of the subjects. Such absolute divorce of subjects neither is good in research nor in education (Riffert 2005). Whitehead underlines the value of learning by doing (“Whitehead and Twelve Principles of Education,” n.d.). Education cannot be dissected from practice (“Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training,” n.d.). Whitehead, in addition, rejects the principle that “easy subjects should come first, and harder ones should only follow these easier ones”. Whitehead stresses the fact that, when learning students must be free to think “rightly and wrongly”. This means that making mistakes shouldn’t be hidden or explained away. On the contrary, it should be conceived as an unique opportunity and an additional source for gaining new knowledge (Riffert 2005). The role of the educator is to elicit energy and excitement, by resonance of his or her personality, to ensure that the learning environment does not dwell on and shifts from one mass of inert ideas to another, but rather maintain a focus on the underlying principles from which future generalization is possible (Jones 2006). It is not the job of the educator simply to insert into his students minds little chunks of knowledge. Regarding to content Whitehead holds that any adequate education must include a literary component, a scientific component and a technical component (Irvine 1996). The first includes not just the study of language, but also the study of high achievement in human thought and writing. The second includes practice in the observation of natural phenomena as well as exposure to the testing of theories and of the presumed law-like connections we find in the natural world. The third focuses primarily on the “art of utilizing” knowledge, especially in the production of goods but also in any area of so-called knowledge application Although all three components are essential for a proper education, varying degrees of emphasis will be required, depending on a student’s interests and abilities (Irvine 1996).

Sources Whitehead:

1) Brumbaugh, Robert Sherrick. n.d. Whitehead, Process Philosophy, and Education. Google Books. SUNY Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=nI5FAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=whitehead+about+education&ots=mIIar3Q-xZ&sig=ioNRZaRgNSLyQ3IklCq28hNt57Y#v=onepage&q=whitehead%20about%20education&f=false.

2) Evans, Malcolm D. 1998. Whitehead and Philosophy of Education: The Seamless Coat of Learning. Google Books. Rodopi. https://books.google.com/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=8P4ISpcflJ0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=whitehead+about+education&ots=-PRcjrO1ER&sig=YbFGPNWhG8JmESOy6-duxIHZu_Y#v=onepage&q=whitehead%20about%20education&f=false.

3) Whitehead, Alfred North. 1967. Aims of Education. Google Books. Simon and Schuster. https://books.google.com/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=WbXs-vyWPPgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=whitehead+about+education&ots=muaCHDBnUY&sig=IMB0Esx4xK9TGccxlLGKtMcHV9M#v=onepage&q=whitehead%20about%20education&f=false.

4) Jones, Colin. 2006. “Enterprise Education: Revisiting Whitehead to Satisfy Gibbs.” Education + Training 48, no. 5: 356–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910610677045.

5) Irvine, Andrew David. 1996. “Alfred North Whitehead.” Stanford.library.sydney.edu.au, May (May). https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/win2015/entries/whitehead/.

6) Whitehead, A. N. 1959. “The Aims of Education.” Daedalus 88, no. 1: 192–205. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20026487?casa_token=EFMBL4yuqrIAAAAA%3AvMwRInFkf5yy3evyv4uudLvmIKRsJTCXH-K3ZFpkIK6jzmxcEWXqEvV6gCqU3eX2PSSEjaGbVXyG_a9BMWdEJNGkxF9qb6gy_bKqaqw6CVP9HFHF_jAgNQ&seq=1.

7) Riffert, Franz G. 2005. Alfred North Whitehead on Learning and Education: Theory and Application. Google Books. Cambridge Scholars Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=hqgxooqzbLsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=whitehead+about+education&ots=ifY8AjndVd&sig=ovS3BxnieiU4rFctrf5rPHhKrnE#v=onepage&q=whitehead%20about%20education&f=false.

8) Tamboukou, Maria. 2016. “Education as Action/the Adventure of Education: Thinking with Arendt and Whitehead.” Journal of Educational Administration and History 48, no. 2 (February): 136–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2016.1144578.

9) “Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training.” n.d. Education.stateuniversity.com. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2548/Whitehead-Alfred-North-1861-1947.html.

10) “Whitehead and Twelve Principles of Education.” n.d. Open Horizons. https://www.openhorizons.org/whitehead-and-twelve-principles-of-education.html.

11) “Process Philosophy.” n.d. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/process-philosophy.

Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism was a philosophical field of thought that “believed that the processes of natural selection acting on variations in the population would result in the survival of the best competitors and in continuing improvement in population. Societies were viewed as organisms that evolve in this manner” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2021). William Graham Sumner, from the United States, and Herbert Spencer, from Hebert Spencer from England, were the two most prominent philosophers of social darwinism. Of these men, Herbert Spencer was most involved with the right to education. Two of Herbert Spencer’s books, Man Versus the States and Essays on Education and Kindred Subjects touch on the topic of education.

Tienken, in his article “Neoliberalism, Social Darwinism, and Consumerism Masquerading as School Reform”, writes “In education policy social Darwinism is visible through the use of one-size-fits-all mandated curricula standards and the use of results from mandated standardized testing to make important decisions about children and teachers” (Tienken, 2013, 305). Because of ‘survival of the fittest’ being one of the main points of social Darwinism, these philosophers often want to see what happens when students are all given access to the same schooling and curriculum and who comes out on top after that.

Spencer, in his book, Man Versus the State, writes “There is a rising demand, too, that education shall be made gratis (i.e., tax supported), for all. The payment of school-fees is beginning to be denounced as a wrong: the State must take the whole burden” (Spencer, 1916, 22). During Spencer’s lifetime there was a push to make education free for all, by making it be funded by tax dollars. This would, in turn, ensure that more children would have the right to an education.

In Essays on Education and Kindred Subjects, Spencer writes, “The notion that an ideal humanity might be forthwith produced by a perfect system of education, is near akin to that implied in the poems of Shelley, that would mankind give up their old institutions and prejudices, all the evils in the world would at once disappear” (Spencer, 1911 86). Social Darwinists believed in ‘survival of the fittest’, a term originally coined by Spencer himself. Thus, these philosophers believed that it was possible that the ideal version of society could be created via the use of education.

Sources:

Herbert Spencer, The Man Versus the State, Truxton Beale, ed., New York, 1916

Herbert Spencer, Essays on Education and Kindred Subjects, London & Toronto, 1911

Encyclopedia Britannica, “social Darwinism”, 2021, https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-Darwinism (accessed 22 March 2022)

Christopher H. Tienken, “Neoliberalism, Social Darwinism, and Consumerism Masquerading as School Reform” Interchange (March 2013) 295-316

Continental Philosophy/Frankfurt School

The Frankfurt school is a social and political philosophical movement of thought located in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. It is the original source of what is known as critical theory (Corradetti 2013). Through the critical theory, the Frankfurt school has certain views on education (Frymer 2010). For example, some scholars talk about the “reproduction theory” in education. The reproduction theory says that schools reproduced inequality and dominant social relations (Frymer 2010). The Frankfurt school believes that education should emancipate the student, to think critically and also critically self-reflect ‘in order to prevent another Auschwitz’ (“Critical Pedagogy and Its Application to Contemporary Education” n.d). So, we can say that critical theory has its origin in the 1930’s in Germany and was mainly shaped by the Frankfurt school (“Critical Pedagogy and Its Application to Contemporary Education” n.d). The critical theory of the Frankfurt school was further developed in critical pedagogy by other scholars in particular Paulo Freire (Kellner 2006). The academic influence of the “critical” method is for reaching in terms of educational in which such tradition is taught and in terms of the problems it addresses (Corradetti 2013 ). However, the early texts of the Frankfurt school don’t merely critically reflect upon education in the sense of the scholarly production of knowledge but a broader sense of discrimination and socialization, they tend to focus not on formal education or pedagogical techniques but what is considered the more significant psycho-social molding of character that takes place in early childhood within the family (Charles 2018). Important in this discussion in ‘paternal education’. For Horkheimer and Adorno, the authoritarianism of ‘paternal education’ within earlier capitalism was connected to the father’s centrality as the principal wage-earner and his dependence on his son for the continuation of his active role in society, a gender order centered on the normative ideal of the family wage (Charles 2018). The Frankfurt school doesn’t think public education will be any better. Adorno & Horkheimer think that the tendency to abolish educational privilege through systems of public education, does not open for the masses the spheres from which they were formally excluded, but, given existing social conditions, contributor directly to the decay of education and the progress of barbaric meaningless (Charles 2018). Horkheimer thinks that the youth should be educated so that it is critical in face of demagogy. Through education the youth acquired the categories with which to distinguish demagogy from a truly rational politics. Through education the youth will become sensitive enough to any and all persecution that something in them should rebel when any individual is not treated as a rational being (Charles 2018). Some Frankfurt school scholars like Adorno are against the contemporary education, which he calls “half-education”. He think that contemporary education is a standardization of education that leaves people largely uneducated and breeds them into consumers rather than raising them towards a critical consciousness with a potential of skepticism (“Critical Pedagogy and Its Application to Contemporary Education” n.d). Marcuse is a member of the Frankfurt school. Marcuse’s engagement with education involves radical critique of the existing system of education (Kellner 2006). Marcuse’s work combines critical philosophy, social theory, aesthetics, and radical politics. Marcuse stresses the importance of play, education of the senses, and cultivation of the imagination for an emancipatory pedagogy (Kellner 2006). Critical pedagogy emerged as the result of the educational reforms advocated by the Frankfurt school in Germany and was later developed by educationalists such as Freire in order to provide a critical re-assessment of the issues in modern education (salehi and Mohammadkhani 2013). You can also call it critical education. Freire is regarded as the major critical theorist in the critical pedagogy (salehi and Mohammadkhani 2013). Freire believed that education in political for it offered the conditions for self-reflection and a self-managed life, to ask themselves what it means to be citizens and expanding their participation in a substantive democracy (“Critical Pedagogy and Its Application to Contemporary Education” n.d). He thinks that critical education should be a basic element of progressive social change and radical democracy. Freire also thinks that the current inequity of education has violated the rights of less privileged members of communities, and it ends up damaging the basic human rights in modern societies (salehi and Mohammadkhani 2013). The most important of education is critical thinking, Freire thinks that the most important part of education is critical thinking, he thinks that it allows students to recognize connections between their individual problems and the broader social contexts in which their experiences are embedded (“Critical Pedagogy and Its Application to Contemporary Education” n.d). The main goal of the critical pedagogy, is fostering a critical consciousness in citizens, overcoming ignorance and enable them to actively resist oppressive power. This emancipatory pedagogy is supported to contribute to the democratization and humanization and humanization of all aspects of life (“Critical Pedagogy and Its Application to Contemporary Education” n.d). Critical theorists believe that school curriculum must be inclusive of individual differences such as racial backgrounds and social objects (salehi and Mohammadkhani 2013). To conclude, the last decades there has been little engagement with the Frankfurt school in the field of education, either in theoretical or empirical work (Frymer 2010).

Sources:

• Frymer, Benjamin. 2010. The Frankfurt School and Education: Critical Theory and Youth Alienation. Brill.com. Brill. https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789460911774/BP000008.xml.

• Kellner, Douglas. 2006. “Marcuse’s Challenges to Education.” Policy Futures in Education 4, no. 1 (March): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2006.4.1.1.

• Charles, Matthew. 2018. “Erziehung: The Critical Theory of Education and Counter-Education.” The SAGE Handbook of Frankfurt School Critical Theory, January (January). https://www.academia.edu/36663379/Erziehung_The_Critical_Theory_of_Education_and_Counter_Education.

• “Critical Pedagogy and Its Application to Contemporary Education.” n.d. Halifax.mediacoop.ca. Accessed April 4, 2022. http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/blog/sejengojona/10472.html.

• salehi, Akbar, and Kayhan Mohammadkhani. 2013. “The School Curriculum as Viewed by the Critical Theorists.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 89, no. October (October): 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.809.

• Corradetti, Claudio. 2013. “The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory.” Papers.ssrn.com. Rochester, NY. February 3, 2013. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2211197.

Behaviorism

Burrhus Frederick Skinner pioneered the science of behavioral analysis and positive reinforcement as an educational tool. He is famous for his different experiences and his contributions to ‘operant conditioning’. His work is an important contribution to the field of education (“B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) - Behavioral Analysis, Social Service, Educational Reform” 2019). Skinner’s influence has been far greater than most professionals in education on psychology probably realize (Hawkins 1990). The legacy that Skinner left is represented most conspicuously in the behavioral models of education (Greer 1991). For example, “Precision Teaching” is the only instructional system derived from Skinner’s work to use his monitoring method exclusively (Lindsley 1991). The book of Skinner: ‘The behavior of organisms’ announced Skinner’s vision for the future of behavioral analysis: “The importance of a science of behavior derives largely from the possibility of an extension to human affairs”. Ultimately this extension would impact American education (“B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) - Behavioral Analysis, Social Service, Educational Reform” 2019). In Skinner’s view, education has two major purposes: 1) To teach repertoires of both verbal and nonverbal education; and 2) to encourage students to display an interest in instruction. He endeavored to bring student’s behavior under the control of the environment by reinforcing it only when particular stimuli were present. Because he believed that human behavior could be affected by small consequences something as simple as “the opportunity to move forward after completing one stage of an activity” (“Influence on Education” 2019). Skinner created a ’teaching machine’ for the subject of math. The learning machine was engineered with positive reinforcement coming from correctly answering the questions. Hence, learning behavior were shaped by immediate positive reinforcement (“B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) - Behavioral Analysis, Social Service, Educational Reform” 2019). Sadly, for Skinner, his teaching machine didn’t become as popular as televisions and automobiles. It was Skinner most bitter disappointment as a social inventor. He thought that a revolution in education was necessary for the survival of American culture (“B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) - Behavioral Analysis, Social Service, Educational Reform” 2019). He thought that a technology of teaching incorporating behavioral science could properly educate a citizenry capable of effectively coping with an enveloping ominous world (“B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) - Behavioral Analysis, Social Service, Educational Reform” 2019). Skinner also explained the difference between informal learning, which occurs naturally, and formal education, which depends on the teacher creating optimal patterns of stimulus and response, also called ‘operant conditioning’ (“StackPath,” n.d.). The application of operant conditioning to education is simple and direct. Teaching is an “arrangement of contingencies of reinforcement” under which students learn. They learn without teaching in their natural environments, but teachers arrange special contingencies which expedite learning, hastening the appearance of behavior which would otherwise be acquired slowly or making sure of the appearance of behavior which might otherwise never occur (“StackPath,” n.d.). Skinner asserted that positive reinforcement is more effective at changing and establishing behavior than punishment, with obvious implication for the then widespread practice of rote learning and punitive discipline in education. Skinner also suggests that main thing people learn from being punished is how to avoid punishing (“Influence on Education” 2019). So logically he declines the punitive and coercive method (Skinner 1974). Skinner thinks that we should further abandon coercive techniques (“Home” n.d.). In the small paper “The shame of American education”, Skinner criticized the American educational system (Skinner 1984). The main message of the paper is that the behavioral models and practices are not yet widely adopted by American schools (Greer 1991). Skinner believes that most problems in the American educational system can be solved if students learned twice as much in the same time and with the same effort. It has been shown that they can do so (a) when the goals of education are clarified, (b) when each student is permitted to advance his or her own pace, and (c) when the problem of motivation is solved with programmed instructional materials, so designed that students are very often right and learn at once that they are (Skinner 1984). The theories of human behavior most often taught in schools of education stand in the way of this solution to the problem of American education, but the proposal that schools of education simply be disbanded is a step in the wrong direction. Teachers need to be taught how to teach (Skinner 1984). Skinner believes that our major problems in education if students learned more during each day in school. It means using time more efficiently (Skinner 1984). In this paper, he gives four proposals to improve American education: 1) Be clear about what is to be taught, 2) teach first things first, 3) stop making all students advance at essentially the same rate and 4) program the subject matter (Skinner 1984). Skinner thinks that we need to decide in advance what a student is to learn. He thinks that educational policymakers are unwilling to specify what is worth knowing, and leave the decision to the student (Skinner 1974). Skinner thinks that in improving teaching it is less important to design better contingencies using those already available (“StackPath,” n.d.). At its core, reinforcement theory says that (a) when we’re rewarded for certain behaviors, those behaviors will increase, (b) if given the opportunity to escape painful situation, we will be motivated to behave accordingly, and (c) if behaviors do not receive reinforcement, they are not likely to be repeated (March 24 et al. 2021). For Skinner thinks that immediate and consistent reinforcement is, of course, desirable but this is not to deny the importance consequence so that they prove reinforcing. He not only knows, but he also knows that he knows and is reinforced accordingly (“StackPath,” n.d.). Skinner thinks that effective educational practices must be designed. An effective design must be based upon on outstanding of behavioral processes. The basic questions are these: Why should anyone teach, and why should anyone learn. They are questions about human behavior, and recent advances in the analysis of behavior are helpful in answering them (Skinner 1974).

Sources: 1) “B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) - Behavioral Analysis, Social Service, Educational Reform.” 2019. Stateuniversity.com. 2019. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2421/Skinner-B-F-1904-1990.html.

2) “StackPath.” n.d. Newlearningonline.com. https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-6/supporting-material/skinners-behaviourism.

3) “Influence on Education.” 2019. Burrhus Frederic (B.F.) Skinner. 2019. https://burrhusfredericskinner.weebly.com/influence-on-education.html.

4) March 24, Posted, 2021 in Classroom Management, Social Emotional Learning, and Teaching Strategies. 2021. “Skinner’s Reinforcement Theory in the Classroom.” Advancement Courses’ Teacher Resources. March 24, 2021. https://blog.advancementcourses.com/articles/reinforcement-theory-classroom/.

5) Skinner, B. F. 1984. “The Shame of American Education.” American Psychologist 39, no. 9: 947–54. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.39.9.947.

6) Hawkins, Robert P. 1990. “THE LIFE and CONTRIBUTIONS of BURRHUS FREDERICK SKINNER.” Education and Treatment of Children 13, no. 3: 258–63. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42899169?seq=1.

7) Skinner, B. F. 1974. “Designing Higher Education.” Daedalus 103, no. 4: 196–202. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20024262?casa_token=za89Om2Xn74AAAAA%3An3hxORUcRXD5E2PlYCfjDSS7EXtN3grMxPIurhilonfMR4yGFJY2Z7Q470ID3LWsj8JC6dJ1Lsp0mEbPOQ3OyPNT3d7M9bEXs79_5KcFUlCJJCgN_0EOnw&seq=1. 8) Lindsley, Ogden R. 1991. “Precision Teaching’s Unique Legacy from B. F. Skinner.” Journal of Behavioral Education 1, no. 2 (June): 253–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00957007.

9) Greer, R. Douglas. 1991. “Teaching Practices to Save America’s Schools: The Legacy of B. F. Skinner.” Journal of Behavioral Education 1, no. 2 (June): 159–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00957002.

10) “Home.” n.d. B. F. Skinner Foundation. Accessed April 20, 2022. https://www.bfskinner.org.

Feminist Thought

Three of the most well known feminists that have beliefs on the right to education are Mary Wollstonecraft, Catharine Macaulay, and Margaret Fuller. Mary Wollstonecraft, a philosopher and writer from the United Kingdom, was largely involved with feminism and the right to education, specfically women’s right to education during the 18th century. Her two most well-known books are Thoughts on the Education of Daughters and A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. In both of these novels she discusses women’s rights alongside education while making her argument that women should be seen as equal to men. In A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, “Wollstonecraft argued primarily for the right of women to be educated. She believed that through education would come emancipation” (Lewis, 2021). Wollstonecraft’s main belief was that education was the means through which women would be able to finally be seen as equals to men.

Wollstonecraft lays out the main argument of her philosophy on education in the beginning of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, writing “my main argument is built on this simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of knowledge and virtue; for truth must be common to all, or it will be inefficacious with respect to its influence on general practice” (Wollstonecraft, 1792, xxvi). Wollstonecraft believed that in order for a woman to be a good partner to a man, women must have the same access to education as men do. At the time of Wollstonecraft’s life women were only educated in matters of the home, “such as sewing and water color painting rather than the development of any cognitive skills” (Roberts, 1997, 3). This was true for both upper class and lower class women of the time. All young women received the same education, content wise, but for upper class women, they would receive it in an expensive boarding school. Wollstonecraft fought for the right for women to receive the same education as their male counterparts.

In Thoughts on the Education of Daughters, Wollstonecraft writes, “The wide difference which education makes, I should suppose, would prevent familiarity in the way of equality; yet kindness must be shewn, if we are desirous that our domestics should be attached to our interest and persons” (Wollstonecraft, 1787, 120). She is firmly acknowledging that education is necessary for the advancement of women in our society.

Wollstonecraft, “believed that if women were not educated to become independent, their actions would be based on other persons’ wills, not their own. Wollstonecraft not only perceived this as being destructive to women, but also detrimental to their families. They would become tyrants with their homes, poor mothers, and unable to cope if widowed, since they have never practiced independent thought” (Manus, 1993, 9). By granting women the right to be educated in the same fashion as men, she is arguing that this will, in turn, uplift the entirety of their families and children. Women are the backbone of the family in a traditional sense, therefore their education is of utmost importance.

It is clear that while reading Wollstonecraft’s work, “one discovers that Wollstonecraft’s argument for the emancipation of women is based on the right to education” (Manus, 1993, 15). She is a strong advocate of the right to education for women, so that women and men can become equals. Education is the means by which women and men will become equal to one another.

Catharine Macaulay is often linked with Mary Wollstonecraft when discussing feminism and the right to education. As Macaulay says in her book, Letters on Education: With Observations on Religious and Metaphysical Subjects, “The situation and education of women, Hortensia, is precisely that which must necessarily tend to corrupt and debilitate both the powers of mind and body” (Macaulay, 129). Catherine Gardner discusses this concept, stating, “the moral education must be the same, and it is clear that by this Macaulay means a general principled education rather than the sexes sharing a moral education but having a separate general education” (Gardner, 1998, 125). She believed that both men and women should receive the same general education as one another.

One of Macaulay’s central arguments is that men and women need to have equal access to the right to an education. Gardner writes that, “Macaulay intends to connect the development of moral excellence with the need for the equal education of women. Moral excellence, because of the form of the mind, can be produced only through a consistent education grounded on immutable principles; and any attempt at producing this moral excellence will invariably entail a call for equality of education” (Gardner, 1998, 126).

In Macauley’s eyes, “Lack of education, she argued, made impossible any real political equality” (Hill, 1995, 184). She held that, in order for men and women to be seen as equals, they must have access to the same education. Macaulay, along with many other feminists of her time, believed that if women had the same right to an education as men, the two sexes could become equals. Macaulay often criticized the state of female education during her lifetime as it was not comparable with the education received by men. She was one of the few feminists of her time tha twas bold enough to speak out against this injustice. The education received by women could be described as ‘useless’ and “it was a damning indictment of female education. Daringly Macaulay advocated co-education for children, for the separation of their education sprang from ‘the absurd notion, that the education of females should be of an opposite kind to that of males’.” (Hill, 1995, 186). The origins of education believed that both men and women should be educated differently, as well as educated on different topics. Macaulay fought this notion and wanted both men and women to receive the same education.

Margaret Fuller was a philosopher known for both her work in the transcendentalist movement, as well as her work as a feminist. Fuller is known as one of the first feminists in the United States. She was a firm believer that women deserved to have the right to a proper education. She “was interested in a wide range of social topics. She believed in social reform from women’s rights to the prison system. In particular, she believed women had a right to a full education” (Few.org, 2016). One of the core beliefs that Fuller held was that all women had the right to receive an education, the same as men do.

Margaret Fuller had an unusual relationship with education for a woman living during the 1800s, starting from a young age. As a child, her father decided that she should receive the same education that a young boy would, so he ensured this would happen. Fuller’s father was “disappointed that his first child was a girl, determined that Margaret should receive a boy’s education. Margaret Fuller’s education formed and defined her in ways that fundamentally affected the course of her life” (Tangorra, 2010, 47). The fact that she, as a young girl, was able to receive an education traditionally meant for young boys, molded much of her adult life, as she focused on the value of education for most of her career. She would continue to advocate that men and women should receive the same education for the entirety of her life.

Fuller wanted “a world where people are free and empowered, regardless of gender, race, or class” (Howe, 2021). In order to work to achieve this goal, Fuller held a number of “conversations” in Boston, which fellow women would attend and discuss predetermined topics. The main goal of these discussions was to give women a place to learn about and discuss things that they did not have the opportunity to learn in a traditional educational setting at the time, such as “fine arts, history, mythology, literature, and nature” (Norman, 2022). This gave women of the time a unique opportunity to become educated in the same subjects as their male peers, that they had not had the opportunity to before. This era of history was “a period of rising educational levels and correspondingly raising expectations- a period also rife with men’s advice about women’s roles- Fuller’s proposal struck a chord, and the ‘Conversations’ continued as long as she was in Boston” (Robinson, 1982, 90-91). These Conversations served as a way to provide women in Boston with extra educational opportunities so that they could receive education on the same topics that men were being educated on. Fuller was working to create an equal right to an education for both men and women. Similar to Macaulay, Fuller wanted men and women to have access to the same types of education.

Fuller’s fellow philosophers believed that “an equal distribution of materiality and spirituality in the private realm will ultimately bring justice in the public sphere… Fuller through aesthetics and active involvement in educational issues” (Alfonso, 2016, 79). During her lifetime, Fuller was entangled with both prominent transcendentalist philosophers, as well as prominent feminists. The main way in which Fuller believed that society would eventually have justice in the public world is through the use of education.

Sources:

Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, London: Walter Scott, 1792

Mary Wollstonecraft, Thoughts on the Education of Daughters, London, 1787

Bary Burke, “Mary Wollstonecraft on Education”, 2004, The Encyclopedia of of Pedagogy and Informal Information, https://infed.org/mobi/mary-wollstonecraft-on-education/ (accessed 08 March 2022)

Leonard H. Roberts, “Mary Wollstonecraft’s ‘Rational Education’ Agenda and the Status of Women in Eighteenth Century England” U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) (November 1997) 2-8

Jone Johnson Lewis, “What Was the Main Goal of Mary Wollstonecraft’s Advocacy?”, 2021, Thought Co. https://www.thoughtco.com/mary-wollstonecraft-vindication-rights-women-3530794# (accessed 09 March 2022).

Alice L. Manus, “Visions of Mary Wollstonecraft: Implications for Education” U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) (April 1993) 2-26

Catherine Gardner, “Catharine Macauley’s ‘Letters on Education’: Odd but Equal” Hypatia 13, No. 1 (1998) 118-137

Catharine Macauley, Letters on Education: With Observations on Religious and Metaphysical Subjects, Dublin, 1790

Bridget Hill, “The Links between Mary Wollstonecraft and Catharine Macauley: new evidence” Women’s History Review 4, No. 2 (1995) 177-192

Karen Green, “Catharine Macaulay”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2020, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/catharine-macaulay/ (accessed 11 March 2022).

“Margaret Fuller- Working Towards Women’s Equality”, 2016, Few.org, https://www.few.org/2016/08/01/margaret-fuller-working-toward-womens-equality/ (accessed 09 March 2022)

Daniel Howe, “Margaret Fuller”, 2021, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fuller-margaret/ (accessed 10 March 2022)

David M. Robinson, “Margaret Fuller and the Transcendental Ethos: Woman in the Nineteenth Century”, Modern Language Association 97, No. 1 (January 1982) 83-98

Jeremy Norman, “Margaret Fuller Holds the First of her ‘Conversations,’ Considered the First Book Club in the U.S.”, 2022, History of Information https://historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=5473 (accessed 15 March 2022)

Ricardo Miguel Alfonso, “Margaret Fuller and Education: Between History and Aesthetics” Revista de Estudios Norteamericanos 20 (2016) 67-85

Gina C. Tangorra, “Margaret Fuller the Reformer: A Transcendentalist in the Era of Reform” Illinois Wesleyan University 11, No.1 (2010) 46-75

Postmodernism

The difficulty of postmodernism is that there is no real consensus on what postmodernism is (Burbules 2009). It is also often used as an umbrella term. It originated not as a philosophical theory but as a description of movements within art and architecture (Burbules 2009). Postmodernism is often critiqued as deconstructing the ideals of modernism rather than with laying down principles concerning the development of knowledge and its relationship to higher education (“Postmodernism and the Challenges Facing 21st Century Educators” 2014). We could define postmodernism as an overarching philosophical project that responds to and critiques the principles of modernity and challenges the established way of thinking (Tesar et al. 2021). The first and most important scholar in Postmodernism is Jean-François Lyotard. He argues that all education is inhuman because it does not happen without constraint and terror. However, he thinks that is possible to educate humans (Lyotard 1992). Lyotard argues that children have to be educated is a circumstance which only proceeds from the fact that they are not completely led by nature, not programmed (Lyotard 1992). Henry Giroux and Peter McLaren have made wide-ranging critical pedagogies as a strategy to alter educational practices as part of project of social and cultural education (Woods 1999). David. W. Orr. argues for the necessity of finding a postmodern ‘connective education’ which is ‘life-centered’ to overcome the permissive effects of education in the modern world (Woods 1999).

Postmodernism questions ontological, epistemological, and ethical conventions and it opens possibilities for multiple discourses and accepting marginalized and minority thoughts and practices. Postmodernism has also been playing a significant role in the equity approach in education (Tesar et al. 2021). Postmodern pedagogy is a search for practices which enact a democratic use of knowledge, texts and cultural practices (Woods 1999). One of the criticisms that postmodernism direct at modernism is it reliance on the development and maintenance of hierarchies. Aside of the hierarchy in university staff there is also a hierarchy in education disciplines, degrees and institutions (“Postmodernism and the Challenges Facing 21st Century Educators” 2014). An important element of postmodernity is a growing awareness of the radical diversity and potential in commensurability of the different cultural forms of life that sustain groups and individuals, not in fact an increase in these differences but an increased sensitivity to these differences (Burbules 2009).

Another important element in the destabilization of the assumption of a coherent, consistent identity (Burbules 2009). Before we look further at the elements of postmodernism, we take a look the postmodern age and the conditions of post modernity. So how is education in the age of postmodernity? Firstly, schools have become more ‘consumerist and provide more individual choice-marketisation of education. Secondly, has become more individualized. Thirdly, education is more diverse, there is an increasing diversity of school types. Fourthly, there is an increasing fragmentation in education, you can see the difference between private, public and home-schooling. Fifthly, education is more ‘hyperreal’, there is more use of ICT in education (Burbules 2009). The conditions of post modernity an increased awareness of, and sensitivity to, radical and sometimes incommensurable difference; the instability of a fixed or consistent sense of identity; the pervasive analysis of power relations as constitutive of human interactions; and the indeterminacy and limits of language as a medium for adjudicating competing claim of truth and value-all go the very heart of any possible account of education (Burbules 2009). How is postmodern education in reality? Postmodern learning is a creative act, it evolves ever-changing environments and learning environments and learning arrangements (“Postmodernism and the Challenges Facing 21st Century Educators” 2014). The postmodernism instructor is a “guide on the side” whose role is more to facilitate learning experiences toward the meaningful aims (“Postmodernism and the Challenges Facing 21st Century Educators” 2014). Postmodern educators believe the curriculum can best inspire learning only when school knowledge builds upon the tacit knowledge derived from the cultural resources that students already possess (“Postmodernism and the Challenges Facing 21st Century Educators” 2014). A postmodern high school would be characterized by local decision making. This means that instead of higher bodies, for example: state and local school boards, the students and teachers have the final authority about what is thought and how (“Postmodernism and the Challenges Facing 21st Century Educators” 2014). What is most striking about these recommendations, from a certain point of view, is how much they re-inscribe most of the actual practices and structures of schooling, simply mobilized in the service of a broadly left-democratic sensibility (“Postmodernism and the Challenges Facing 21st Century Educators” 2014). An important point is that postmodern theory of education is contradictory. Because the concept of education seems to contain within its normative assumption and values that rest uneasily within a modern sensibility (Burbules 2009).

Sources:

• Lyotard, Jean-François. 1992. The Inhuman: Reflections on Time. Translated by Geoffrey Bennington and Rachel Bowlby. Stanford University Press. Stanford: Stanford University Press. https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=2883.

• Woods, Tim. 1999. Beginning Postmodernism. Google Books. Manchester University Press. https://books.google.com/books/about/Beginning_Postmodernism.html?id=f-wXCVMTheEC.

• Burbules, Nicholas C. 2009. “Postmodernism and Education.” Edited by Harvey Siegel. PhilPapers. Oxford University Press. 2009. https://philpapers.org/rec/BURPAE-2.

• Tesar, Marek, Andrew Gibbons, Sonja Arndt, and Nina Hood. 2021. “Postmodernism in Education.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education, May (May). https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1269.

• “Postmodernism and the Challenges Facing 21st Century Educators.” 2014. The Professional School of Psychology. March 28, 2014. https://psychology.edu/about/four-models-of-adult-education/postmodernism-and-the-challenges-facing-21st-century-educators/.

What do the major legal theories (positive law, natural law, critical legal studies, etc.) say about this right?

The major legal theories, including positive law, natural law, and critical legal studies all have different takes on the right to education. The natural law legal theory sees the right to education as a natural right that all children have. As Albert Grande states, “every child has a natural right to education that will enable him to perform all domestic, social, civil, and moral duties. Education is as natural to the child as breathing and seeing: ‘a child without education is poorer and more wretched than a man without bread’” (Grande, 2006, 70). This branch of legal theory holds that children have a natural right to receive an education, and that an education is one of the most important things that a person can receive in life. The right to education is the basis for many things, and it is through receiving an education that an individual will be able to better themselves and create a better life.

In the area of who is responsible for accessing a proper education for their children, natural law holds that it is the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children are being educated via their right to an education. As Melissa Moschella says, “from the natural law perspective, parents legitimately claim that they are the ones primarily responsible for the education and upbringing of their children, and thus that they have the authority to make decisions about how best to carry out their task” (Moschella, 2014, 199). The natural law area of legal theory sees that the right of education for children is in the hands of their parents. We can see this belief upheld in the Wisconsin v. Yoder Supreme Court case, which Moschella also discusses in her article. This case involved an Amish family in Wisconsin in which the parents did not want to send their children to school past the eighth grade, despite the state’s compulsory education laws, because the parents claimed that an education past the eighth grade went against their religious beliefs as an Amish family. The court ruled in their favor, and allowed the parents to keep their children out of school. This ruling falls in line with the beliefs of natural law in relation to education because the courts ultimately let the parents make the final decision about what educational decision was the best choice to raise their children. Regarding the outcome of this case, Moschella says, “parents are the ones with the authority to make controversial decisions about what type of education is in the best interests of their children” (Moschella, 2014, 218). This belief system gives parents, rather than the state, the ultimate authority to make decisions for their children, including when it comes to making decisions about education. In this way, parents are responsible for whether or not children have the right to an education.

The natural law legal theory is also the basis on which Horace Mann, one of the most well known education reformers, derived his beliefs about education. However, Mann did not hold the belief that the right to education and schooling fell into the hands of parents, he believed that the burden of education fell on the state. Mann has been dubbed the father of the public school because of his beliefs regarding the right to education. He believed that school should be both free and public which came from natural law, “his passionate belief in the common school movement rested upon natural law, which compels the state to provide schools that prepare individuals to perform all the duties essential to citizenship” (Grande, 2006, 69). Horace Mann’s take on the natural law legal theory and education is that it is the responsibility of the government to provide a free education for people. This leads into his belief that the government should be responsible for providing a free education for its citizens.

Andrei Marmor talks about the social thesis that exists within the realm of legal positivism, “according to the social thesis, law is a social phenomenon, it is a social institution, and therefore, what the law is, is basically a matter of social facts” (Marmor, 2006, 686). Legal positivism sees law as being related to social facts and society. The right to education is a core part of society.

When it comes to positive law legal theory, also known as legal positivism, H.L.A. Hart is one of the leading legal philosophers in this field. Hart held that, “legal positivism, as a general theory about the nature of law, is basically descriptive and morally neutral” (Marmor, 2006, 684). Marmor provides a definition for this, “by ‘descriptive’ I mean that such an account does not purport to justify or legitimize any aspects of its subject matter. By ‘morally neutral,’ I mean that the theory need not take a stance on any particular moral or political issues, nor is it committed to any moral or political evaluations” (Marmor, 2006, 683). By these definitions, it means that legal positivism does not exist to have distinct opinions on any particular things or ideas, including rights.

One of the few mentions of the right to education within the field of positive legal theory comes in H.L.A. Hart’s essay “Between Utility and Rights”, when he writes, “Why should there not be included a basic right to the positive service of the relief of great needs or suffering or the provision of basic education and skills when the cost of these is small compared with both the need to be met and with the financial resources of those taxed to provide them?” (Hart, 1979, 835). Hart believed that people should have access to basic services and things that would allow them to create a better life for themselves.

Sources:

Grande, Albert. “Education as a Natural Right” Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development 21, No. 1 (Fall 2006) 53-72

H.L.A. Hart. “Between Utility and Rights” Columbia Law Review 79, No. 5 (June 1979) 828-846

Andrei Marmor. “Legal Positivism: Still Descriptive and Morally Neutral” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26 No. 4 (2006) 683-704

Moschella, Melissa. “Natural Law, Parental Rights, and Education Policy” The American Journal of Jurisprudence 59, No. 2 (2014) 197-227

Culture and Politics

Is this right interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries? Focus on particular countries in which the right is interpreted distinctively

Yes, the right is interpreted and exercised in different ways in different countries.

1. How is the right exercised in different ways in different countries?

The Tomasevski framework is a great way to assess the right to education in a country and the differences in practice between countries. “Katarina Tomasevski was from 1998 to 2004, in the position of Special Rapporteur of the UN High Commission for Human Rights (UNHCHR) on the right to education. She was a longtime human rights activist and legal scholar and served as professor of international law and international relations at the University of Lund, Sweden.” (“(PDF) the Right to Education: The Work of Katarina Tomasevski” n.d.). Tomasevski organized her work around 4 A’s: the availability, accessibility, acceptability, and adaptability of education. The 4 A’s are needed to fulfill the right to education. You can see the different practices of countries concerning the right to education in this framework (Ketki and Kumaiyan n.d., “Right to Education” 2016).

1) Availability:

The availability of education has different components. The most important aspect is the financial aspect. We see that most developing countries are trying to make primary education available and free for all children. “The problem in many developing countries is that governments lack either the financial resources or the political will to meet their citizens’ educational needs” (“Economic Issues No. 33 - Educating Children in Poor Countries” 2015). In contrary we see that in most of the developed world countries encourage children to advance past primary school (Iddings 2018). This doesn’t mean that there are no problems regarding education in developed countries, for example drop-out rates are also existing in developed countries. A good example is the US were the last 10 years the dropout rate has been declining, but there are still rather large differences between races and counties. “The overall status dropout rate decreased from 8.3 percent in 2010 to 5.1 percent in 2019” (“COE - Status Dropout Rates” 2021). “Sub-Saharan Africa is the most affected area with over 32 million children of primary school age remaining uneducated. Central and Eastern Asia, as well as the Pacific, are also severely affected by this problem with more than 27 million uneducated children” (“Right to Education: Situation around the World - Humanium” 2017). Many developing countries are trying to find the most effective and efficient way to get great results with their limited financial budget. A great example of such a creative method is used in Mexico. The government did a program to stimulate children going to secondary school by giving their families financial support. Another important component is the location of the school. The school should be in a reasonable distance from the children and should be safe (the road to the school should also be safe). The problem is that in many developing countries armed conflicts create unsafe regions and roads. “Armed conflict also means that children struggle to get an education - 22 million children of primary school age are affected by this. 75 million children and adolescents have had their education directly affected by conflict and emergencies.” (“Right to Education” 2016). Another component of availability is that schools need adequate materials like teachers, classrooms etc. Because such materials cost money, we see that developing countries struggle to provide adequate materials. The last component is that the education on schools should be free from indoctrination and ideological overtones.

2) Accessibility:

The accessibility of education means that education should be accessible to all without discrimination regarding gender, race, religion, etc. Education should especially be accessible for the most vulnerable people; girls and children from sub-Saharan Africa are most likely to be missing out on their education (“Right to Education” 2016). Research has shown that nowadays girls have less access to education than boys (Iddings 2018, “Right to Education: Situation around the World - Humanium” 2017). “Completion of primary school is a particular problem for girls in sub-Saharan Africa and Western Asia.” (Karam 2015). There is a big inequality between boys and girls regarding education. The inequality is mostly in the Arabic region and Sub-Sahara Africa. According to the IMF In some regions like Sub-Sahara Africa and South-Asia there is bias against girls going to school and there is a more traditional view on gender roles (“Economic Issues No. 33 - Educating Children in Poor Countries” 2015). The problem of gender inequality is a worldwide problem that isn’t limited to the developing world, even in the developed world we see some bias against women in certain fields of study. “There are significant inequalities in tertiary education in general, as well as in relation to areas of study, with women being over-represented in the humanities and social sciences and significantly under-represented in engineering, science and technology.” (Karam 2015).

3) Acceptability:

Acceptability “requires a guaranteed quality of education, minimum standards of health and safety, or professional requirements for teachers which have to be set, monitored, and enforced by the government. Moreover, “the yardstick of acceptability would necessitate ascertaining what is—and is not—acceptable to people (including small people whom we call children) and changing the contents of teaching and learning accordingly”. Acceptability also involves taking into account diverse issues such as indigenous and minority rights, language of instruction, textbook censorship, unregulated privatisation, inadequate spending, and teachers’ rights. (“(PDF) the Right to Education: The Work of Katarina Tomasevski” n.d.). For example the school/state must respect the rights of the parents/legal guardians regarding the education of their children (United Nations 1989). Children must be able to choose their field of study. The education that the state provides should be high quality. Quality wise we see that there is a huge gap between the developing world and the developed world.

4) Adaptability:

Adaptability “requires schools to adapt to children following the yardstick of the best interests of each child in the Convention on the Rights of the Child” (“(PDF) the Right to Education: The Work of Katarina Tomasevski” n.d.).The school/state needs to responds to the needs of the child. For example, children with mental and physical disabilities should also be able to get proper education. This is still a huge challenge around the world. For example, in Africa only 5% of the children with disabilities are able to go to a special school (“Economic Issues No. 33 - Educating Children in Poor Countries” 2015).

2. How is this right interpreted in different ways in different countries?

The right to education has been interpreted differently across countries. We highlight gender & constitutional rights. We highlight some countries who have a special view on the right to education. In Finland the educational system is based on equality. Boys and girls have the same access, opportunities, and quality regarding education (“Education around the World | Introduction to Sociology,” n.d.). In Somalia & Afghanistan the educational system hasn’t equality at all. These states have a bias against girls, and the right to education especially for girls is not respected. The right to free primary education is enshrined in many international treaties. Many states have the right also enshrined in their constitution, but there are still many differences between how they interpreted the right. Free primary education varies from 9 years to 13 years (some countries even give less free primary education). Many countries have in their constitutions the obligation to guarantee free education but there are still 50 countries (including the United States, South- Africa and Malaysia) who don’t have that right enshrined. (Ketki and Kumaiyan n.d.). There are also great differences between countries regarding compulsory primary education (Ketki and Kumaiyan n.d.). For example, in Belgium compulsory education is enshrined in the constitution but in other countries it isn’t.

3. Sources:

• “(PDF) the Right to Education: The Work of Katarina Tomasevski.” n.d. ResearchGate. Accessed January 31, 2022. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312103344_The_Right_to_Education_The_Work_of_Katarina_Tomasevski.

• “COE - Status Dropout Rates.” 2021. Nces.ed.gov. May 2021. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/coj.

• “Right to Education : Situation around the World - Humanium.” 2017. Humanium. 2017. https://www.humanium.org/en/right-to-education/.

• “Right to Education.” 2016. Theirworld. Theirworld. October 19, 2016. https://theirworld.org/explainers/right-to-education.

• “Education around the World | Introduction to Sociology.” n.d. Courses.lumenlearning.com. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sociology/chapter/education-around-the-world/.

• Ketki, Tara, and Kumaiyan. n.d. “COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS of RIGHT to EDUCATION across the WORLD.” Accessed January 31, 2022. https://ujala.uk.gov.in/files/Ketaki.pdf.

• “Economic Issues No. 33 - Educating Children in Poor Countries.” 2015. Imf.org. 2015. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues/issues33/.

• “Children’s Right to Education: Where Does the World Stand?” n.d. Initiative Pour Le Droit à L’éducation. Accessed January 31, 2022. https://www.right-to-education.org/fr/blog/children-s-right-education-where-does-world-stand.

• Iddings, Emily. 2018. “Schools around the World - How Does Education Differ from Country to Country? - Restavek Freedom.” Restavek Freedom. Restavek. June 14, 2018. https://restavekfreedom.org/2018/06/14/schools-around-the-world-how-does-education-differ-from-country-to-country/.

• Karam, Azza. 2015. “Education as the Pathway towards Gender Equality.” United Nations. 2015. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/education-pathway-towards-gender-equality.

• United Nations. 1989. “Convention on the Rights of the Child.” OHCHR. 1989. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx.

Is this right exercised in different ways depending on the political governance regime in place (democracy, autocracy, hybrid regime)?

1. Democracies:

There needs to be made a distinction between educational quality and the right to education. We will only talk about the right to education and the access to education that is a critical part of the right of education, the quality of education is also interesting but isn’t relevant in this case. The quality of education is about how well a certain country performs regarding educating their children. Democracy is widely regarded as superior to autocracy in terms of providing access to education. In democracies more children go to school (Dahlum and Knutsen 2017). Democracy also enhances education quantity measures such as average years of schooling (Dahlum and Knutsen 2017). There is no evidence that countries which had gone through democratization improve their education. A good example is Portugal from 1900-1950 (Palma and Reis 2021). Paglayan states that “democratization had no or little impact on primary enrollment rates” (Paglayan -Uc and Diego 2018). What are the reasons that democratization had no or little impact on primary enrollment rates? Paglayan gives us two reasons: “first, state-controlled primary education systems emerged about a century before democratization; and second, in most countries, a large majority of the population already had access to primary education before democratization.” (Paglayan -Uc and Diego 2018). Paglayan acknowledges that “A large literature in political science and economics argues “that the spread of democratic voting rights played a leading role in explaining the rise of primary schooling”” (Paglayan -Uc and Diego 2018). Paglayan gives three arguments why the large amount of literature needs a “reexamination of the idea that democracy promotes the expansion of basic education” (Paglayan -Uc and Diego 2018). First, “the argument relies on the assumption that the provision of education, particularly primary education, is a pro-poor policy that disproportionately raises the human capital of the poor. This assumption is at odds with mounting evidence that schools, especially those available to the poor, often fail to promote learning and reduce poverty and inequality” (Paglayan -Uc and Diego 2018). Second, “by emphasizing schools’ potential to promote human capital, and overlooking their potential role as an indoctrination and nation-building tool that can shape students’ political values and behaviors” (Paglayan -Uc and Diego 2018). Third, “even if increased access to basic schooling was a salient political demand among the poor, democratic politicians might not be responsive to it—e.g., due to capture of policymaking by the upper classes” (Paglayan -Uc and Diego 2018). Paglyan her conclusion can be summarized like this: In countries where a majority lacked access to basic schooling, democratization did lead to an expansion (“Untangling the Relationship between Democracy and Education” n.d.).

2. Autocracies:

The expansion of primary schooling took place well before societies became democratic. Autocratic regimes expanded primary education, serving multiple goals: industrialization, indoctrination, and state-building (“Untangling the Relationship between Democracy and Education” n.d.). Sometimes autocracies can outperform democracies in educating the masses. A great example is Portugal, where the dictatorship did a far better job than the democratic government in combatting child illiteracy (Palma and Reis 2021). In this particular case the policies of the autocracy were more gradual, more feasible and more aligned with the desires and aspirations of the masses. “The suggestion that authoritarian endurance hinges upon denying citizens access to higher education is consistent with a large body of literature establishing the powerful role of disaffected intellectuals in sparking revolutionary change in non-democratic societies “(Perry, n.d.). But is also important to note that intellectuals play an important role in sustaining autocratic rule. “Autocracies do not always withhold public access to higher education; the more sophisticated authoritarian regimes actively support (and shape) institutions of higher education with an eye toward winning the allegiance of the intelligentsia and thereby prolonging their reign” (Perry, n.d.). The costs and benefits that democracies and autocracies face when considering whether to expand educations varies very widely (“Untangling the Relationship between Democracy and Education” n.d.). An autocratic government might still provide education in the absence of popular demand for it is a means of propaganda or indoctrination to gain support in the long term. In contrary democratic governments make decisions in part on whether the government thinks that doing so is worthwhile from an electoral standpoint. In authoritarian states the budget of education is often under pressure because of the often-large military budgets for internal oppression (“Autocracy Is on the Rise: Should We Expect Military Spending to Follow? | SIPRI,” n.d.).

Sources:

1) Dahlum, Sirianne, and Carl Henrik Knutsen. 2017. “Do Democracies Provide Better Education? Revisiting the Democracy–Human Capital Link.” World Development 94 (June): 186–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.01.001.

2) Dahlum, Sirianne, and Carl Henrik Knutsen. 2017. “Analysis | Democracies Are No Better at Educating Students than Autocracies. This Is Why.” Washington Post, June 13, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/13/democracies-are-no-better-at-educating-than-autocracies-this-is-why/.

3) Palma, Nuno, and Jaime Reis. 2021. “Can Autocracy Promote Literacy? Evidence from a Cultural Alignment Success Story.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 186 (June): 412–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.02.011.

4) “Untangling the Relationship between Democracy and Education.” n.d. Gps.ucsd.edu. Accessed January 31, 2022. https://gps.ucsd.edu/news-events/news/untangling-the-relationship-between-democracy-and-education.html.

5) Perry, Elizabeth. n.d. “HIGHER EDUCATION and AUTHORITARIAN RESILIENCE: THE CASE of CHINA, PAST and PRESENT.” https://www.harvard-yenching.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy_files/featurefiles/Elizabeth%20Perry_Higher%20Education%20and%20Authoritarian%20Resilience.pdf.

6) “Autocracy Is on the Rise: Should We Expect Military Spending to Follow? | SIPRI.” n.d. Www.sipri.org. https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2020/autocracy-rise-should-we-expect-military-spending-follow.

7) Paglayan -Uc, Agustina, and San Diego. 2018. “Democracy and Educational Expansion: Evidence from 200 Years.” https://www.lse.ac.uk/lacc/publications/PDFs/Paglayan-Democracy-and-Educational-Expansion-130618.pdf.

Is there general and widespread belief that this right is a fundamental right that should generally be protected (and that exceptions should be rare)?

1. General and widespread belief

There is a general and widespread belief that the right to education is a fundamental right and that it should be protected. In the next section I will talk about some examples that can be interpreted as exceptions. A lot of international institutions and treaties confirm that the right to education is a fundamental right (UNESCO 2019). The most important document regarding the generality of the right to education is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). In article 26 it affirms that education is a fundamental human right for everyone (UNESCO 2019, “Understanding Education as a Right” 2001, Nations 2022, “Reflections on Education as a Fundamental Human - ProQuest,” n.d., “EMERGENCE of RIGHT to EDUCATION as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT-an ANALYTICAL STUDY,” n.d.You could say that the right is universally recognized since the UDHR in 1948 (“The Right to Education,” n.d.). Another important document regarding the right to education is the UN convention on the right of the child (“Reflections on Education as a Fundamental Human - ProQuest,” n.d., “EMERGENCE of RIGHT to EDUCATION as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT-an ANALYTICAL STUDY,” n.d.). There are some reasons why it is considered a fundamental right. First, you could see education as fundamental human right because it is a necessity for the exercise of other human rights (UNESCO 2019, “Vikaspedia Domains,” n.d., Nations 2022). Secondly, both individuals and society benefit from the right to education, it’s “fundamental for human, social, and economic development” (“Understanding Education as a Right” 2001, Nations 2022, “EMERGENCE of RIGHT to EDUCATION as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT-an ANALYTICAL STUDY,” n.d.). International institutions like UNESCO try to enforce and monitor the right to education in countries (UNESCO 2019). UNESCO states “that all countries in the world have ratified at least one treaty covering certain aspects of the right to education. This means that all states are held to account, through legal mechanisms” (UNESCO 2019).

2. Exceptions? USA and India as examples

We can state that the right to education is in a lot of international treaties, in national constitutions and heavily advocated by a lot of international institutions. In reality, this sometimes remains a dead letter (“EMERGENCE of RIGHT to EDUCATION as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT-an ANALYTICAL STUDY,” n.d.). There are “still countries that have not integrated the right to education into their national constitutions or provided the legislature and administrative framework to ensure that the right to education is realized in practice” (“Understanding Education as a Right” 2001). In India, millions are denied basic right to education, however the right to education is constitutionalized (“EMERGENCE of RIGHT to EDUCATION as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT-an ANALYTICAL STUDY,” n.d.). India is a great example of a lot of (mainly developing) countries that have constitutionalized the right to education but don’t have enough public finances or political will to carry out it out in practice. A minority of countries haven’t constitutionalized the right, the United States are a great example (Lepore 2018, Dorsey 2020). Education is not a constitutionally protected right. This is an assertation made by the US Supreme Court every time it has been challenged. In the famous case of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1971), the US Supreme Court refused to recognize the fundamental right to public education (Wilkins 2005). Another famous case is the Gary B v. Whitmer case (2020). The U.S Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided that there is “Fundamental right to basic minimum education” under the US constitution (Equity 2020). It was the first time a court asserted a federal right to education (Equity 2020). We will see in the next years how the American case will evolve.

3. Sources

• UNESCO. 2019. “What You Need to Know about the Right to Education.” UNESCO. February 19, 2019. https://en.unesco.org/news/what-you-need-know-about-right-education.

• “The Right to Education.” n.d. Norad. https://www.norad.no/en/front/thematic-areas/education/right-to-education/.

• “Understanding Education as a Right.” 2001. Right to Education Initiative. 2001. https://www.right-to-education.org/page/understanding-education-right.

• Dorsey, David. 2020. “Education Is Still (for Now) Not a Fundamental Right under the U.S. Constitution.” Kansas Policy Institute. September 17, 2020. https://kansaspolicy.org/education-is-still-for-now-not-a-fundamental-right-under-the-u-s-constitution/.

• Lepore, Jill. 2018. “Is Education a Fundamental Right?” The New Yorker. 2018. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/10/is-education-a-fundamental-right.

• “Vikaspedia Domains.” n.d. Vikaspedia.in. https://vikaspedia.in/education/child-rights/educationfundamental-human-right.

• Wilkins, Brooke. 2005. “Number 2 Article 8 Fall 3-2-2005, Should Public Education Be a Federal Fundamental Right?” BYU Educ. & L.J 261. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1207&context=elj.

• Nations, United. 2022. “Re-Examining the Right to Education from a Contemporary Perspective | United Nations.” United Nations. United Nations. 2022. https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/re-examining-right-education-contemporary-perspective.

• “Reflections on Education as a Fundamental Human - ProQuest.” n.d. Www.proquest.com. https://www.proquest.com/docview/818335680?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true.

• “EMERGENCE of RIGHT to EDUCATION as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT-an ANALYTICAL STUDY.” n.d. https://mssv.ac.in/media-library/uploads/ZYd7aknZvOdkZkOXL9p0f1o2OSotsGuiXrkRaZnc.pdf.

• Equity, Center for Educational. 2020. “Federal Court Holds There Is a Fundamental Right to Education under the U.S Constitution.” Center for Educational Equity. April 27, 2020. https://educationalequityblog.org/2020/04/27/federal-court-holds-there-is-a-fundamental-right-to-education-under-the-u-s-constitution/.

Does public polling reveal insights about the right as experienced in different countries?

According to polling data from the Euro Barometer, published by the European Commission in June 2022 [surveyed from Feb 2022-Mar 2022], it was revealed that with regards to EU citizens and International Partners, “over nine in ten respondents (91%) agree that promoting education for all should be one of the main priorities of the EU’s action in partner countries.” (European Commission 2022). With respect to peace and international security, having been polled as the first most pressing issue, the Euro-barometer polling data revealed that, “the second most pressing challenge mentioned is health (39%), followed by education (37%) and water and sanitation (30%).” (European Commission 2022). The overall concern that EU citizens expressed in varying countries towards education reflected the significance of the effect of educational evolution on future generational success. Education was regarded as being a priority among citizens in corresponding polled countries in the EU, with respect to the digitalization of education and further supporting digital access for institutions. “Almost eight in ten (79%) think it is important for the EU to support partner countries in going digital [in regards to education].” (European Commission 2022). The significance of the right to an education is not only rooted in how an education is administered, but who is prioritizing that right to an education.Within America, there is a split that divides the right to education, first the right to educational access is qualified as a necessity based on federal legislation, but it is not enforced as a protected individual right under federal law. According to a Pew Research Center survey regarding what Americans had to say about schools [years K-12], “Americans express a bit more ambivalence toward the role of colleges and universities in workforce preparation, with around half of adults (52%) saying these higher-education institutions should have a lot of responsibility in making sure workers have the right skills and education to succeed. About half (49%) say employers should have a lot of responsibility in this role, but people are less likely to assign a lot of responsibility to state (40%) and federal governments (35%).” (Bialik 2017). Within his scope of analysis, beliefs surrounding the right to education vastly differ based on where responsibility lies in the American education system. Simultaneously, the right to education is regarded as being valuable within a democratic society, as well as being viewed as a right that is not federally protected under the Constitution. Meanwhile, in terms of economic benefits of providing access and protection fo the right to education, the protection of the right to education would greatly improve future work generations to come. “Six-in-ten adults say the public K-12 education system has a lot of responsibility in making sure the U.S. workforce has the right skills and education to be successful in today’s economy, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in association with the Markle Foundation in 2016.” (Bialik 2017). The value placed upon the education system itself reflects the importance of the right to education within America. A protected right must be valuable if it prepares students to enter the workforce, and simultaneously works as a means of income when education is lawfully protected. The debate surrounding who actually bears the responsibility for the adequacy of that education in regards to workplace preparation underlines the importance of education by the principle of absence. An absence of education would have damaging consequences on the future workforce generations in America, thus, the right to education is significantly valuable when viewing the negative consequences related to not providing a right to education in the American system.

References: Bialik, Kristen. 2017. “Most Americans say K-12 schools have a lot of responsibility in workforce preparation.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/25/most-americans-say-k-12-schools-have-a-lot-of-responsibility-in-workforce-preparation/. European Commission. 2022. ““EU citizens strongly support international cooperation to reduce poverty and build partnerships with partner countries” European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_3584.

Conflicts with other Rights

Are there other specific fundamental rights that tend to conflict with this right? Can you identify specific examples of this?

When it comes to the right to education, it can oftentimes overlap with and conflict with other fundamental rights. Through court cases, we have seen it conflict with both the right to freedom of religion, as well as freedom of speech.

The case Wisconsin v. Yoder deals with freedom of religion in conjunction with a child’s right to an education. The state of Wisconsin had mandatory school attendance laws, meaning that parents were legally obligated to send their children to school until the age of sixteen. A set of Amish parents argued that this law was an infringement on their religious beliefs, as they were Amish and higher level education went against their religious beliefs, and did not want their children to be in school past an elementary level. The children in this case were sent to school until they finished the eighth grade, and then the parents decided it was against their Amish religious beliefs to continue to send their children to school. The court found that, “the Wisconsin compulsory school-attendance law ‘does interfere with the freedom of the Defendants to act in accordance with their sincere religious belief’.” (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972, 213). This case found that the parents’ right to freedom of religion allowed them to refrain from complying with the compulsory school attendance law.

Although the court did rule in favor of the parents to keep their children from finishing school in Wisconsin v. Yoder, “the State, on authority of Prince v. Massachusetts, argues that a decision exempting Amish children from the State’s requirement fails to recognize the substantive right of the Amish child to a secondary education” (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972, 229). Despite their ruling, the court is still acknowledging that these children do indeed have the right to finish their secondary education. The court continues on to say that the state “fails to give due regard to the power of the state as parens patriae to extend the benefit of a secondary education to children regardless of the wishes of their parents” (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972, 229). This means that had the children in the case had opposing views to those of their parents and wished to finish their education, they would have had the right to do that, despite their parents beliefs keeping them out of school.

Another court case, Tinker v. Des Moines, deals with the intersection of the right to education and one’s freedom of speech and expression. This case dealt with students who were going to wear black armbands to school as a way of protesting the Vietnam War. In response to this, the school board decided to ban students from wearing these armbands. Upon this ban, students took it upon themselves to wear the armbands to school anyways, which led to the suspension of four students. In response to this, the court said, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969, 506). This statement created the precedent that the right to education and freedom of speech must be allowed to exist at the same time. Just because an individual is within the confines of a school, that does not mean they drop their First Amendment right to the freedom of speech and expression.

The court case Morse v. Frederick, similar to Tinker v. Des Moines, deals with freedom of speech in a school environment. In this case, a student hung a banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at a school event. In 2002, the Olympic Torch Relay passed by Juneau-Douglas High School, and students were allowed to participate in the relay. When it was time for the relay, along with camera crews, passed in front of the school, Joseph Frederick and his friends unrolled the banner that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. When the principal saw this, she told the students to take the banner down, however, Frederick was the only one of the students that did not comply with her instructions, leading to his suspension from school. Although the banner was not explicitly telling minors to do illegal drugs, the principal argued that it could be implied that Frederick’s banner was encouraging minors to participate in illegal activities.

Frederick sued claiming that his First Amendment rights were violated when his banner was confiscated and he was suspended. When this case first went to the court system, “The federal district court held for the defendants, holding that they had qualified immunity and that the suspension did not violate the First Amendment” (Cordes, 2009, 669). However, when the case went to the Ninth Circuit, the decision was reversed and the court held that the suspension actually was a violation of his First Amendment rights. Ultimately, this case went to the Supreme Court for a final judgment. While still upholding the precedent set in Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court held that “the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending the student responsible for it” (Morse v. Frederick, 2007, 5). Again, quoting Tinker’s famous line, the court states that “‘the nature of those rights is what is appropriate for children in school’ (Morse v. Frederick, 2007, 11). Being that this case involved a substance that is illegal for minors, making Frederick remove the banner from a school event was not an infringement on his First Amendment rights.

A recent court case regarding the freedom of speech in a school setting is the Supreme Court case Mahanoy Area School District, Petitioner v. B.L., A Minor, by and Through her Father, Levy, and her Mother, Betty Loud Levy, which took place in 2021. This case involved a student at the school who made vulgar statements towards the school on her social media, which led to the school suspending her from the cheerleading team for the school year. However, the student’s actions took place after school and off of school grounds. The court argued that “the school violated B.L.’s First Amendment rights when it suspended her from the junior varsity cheerleading squad” (Mahanoy v. B.L., 2021, 2).

This court case also brought into question how far the “schoolhouse gate”, as established in Tinker extends. As Ilya Shapiro said, “‘I think of [Mahanoy] as the inverse of the Tinker case,’... ‘Here the activity at issue was off campus, not at a school-supervised event, and not on a school website’ … ‘The legal issue is how far does the school’s supervisory authority extend’” (Beam, 2021). With the rise of virtual schooling and classes taking place remotely, the area between what is under a school’s authority and what is not has become hazy. Ultimately, the courts ruled in favor of B.L., saying that her speech was protected by the First Amendment.

Sources:

Wisconsin v. Yoder, No. 70-110, 1972 (Supreme Court of Wisconsin)

Tinker et al. v. Des Moines Independent Community School District et al, No. 1969 (Supreme Court of the United States)

American Civil Liberties Union. “Tinker v. Des Moines - Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Behalf of Student Expression” https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-student-expression (accessed 03 February 2022).

Deborah Morse, et al., Petitioners v. Joseph Frederick, No. 06-278, 2007 (Supreme Court of the United States)

Mahanoy Area School District, Petitioner v. B.L., A Minor, By and Through Her Father, Lawrence Levy and Her Mother, Betty Lou Levy, No. 20-255, 2021 (Supreme Court of the United States)

Alex Beam, “It’s ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ all over again’” 2021. Boston Globe, https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/04/05/opinion/its-bong-hits-4-jesus-all-over-again/ (accessed 03 February 2022)

Mark W. Cordes, "Making Sense of High School Speech after Morse v. Frederick," William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 17, no. 3 (March 2009): 657-714

Are there other specific rights that are critical to the exercise of this right? Can you identify specific examples of this?

When it comes to the exercise of one’s right to an education, the right to freedom of speech is critical. If students are not allowed to exercise their freedom of speech in a classroom, it can be argued that they are not being granted their proper right to an education. As Roy Harris says, “From the ‘Aristotelian’ perspective on education, freedom of speech is essential, because if there is any prohibition on discussing or presenting in public any set of topics, that automatically imposes limits on human knowledge, and to that extend cripples education” (Harris, 2009, 199). Following this point of view, freedom of speech is inherently important in ensuring that one gets a proper education. Harris continues on in saying,“if we are pursuing either a ‘Socratic’ or an ‘Aristotlian’ philosophy of education, the requirement of freedom of speech is paramount” (Harris, 2009, 124). In this regard, one cannot fully exercise their right to an education unless they also have freedom of speech within their educational environment.

Harris continues on with this topic by saying, “Where there is no freedom of speech, there can be no guarantee that the education being provided is itself conducive to freedom of thought” (Harris, 2009, 125). Freedom of speech goes hand in hand with freedom of thought, which is critical for all individuals to have. In order for people to properly engage with their right to an education, they must also have access to proper freedom of speech within a classroom or other educational setting.

While it is true that freedom of speech is extremely important in an education as Harris argues, there are some limits to this as a classroom needs to be an environment that is conducive to learning. From the Tinker v. Des Moines Supreme Court case, the substantial disruption test was created, based off of the Burnside v. Byars cases which was argued in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that symbols, such as the armbands seen in Tinker or the pins seen in Burnside, “cannot be prohibited unless it ‘materially and substantially interfere[s] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school’.” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969, 505). The substantial disruption test was also brought up in the Morse v. Frederick case when the Ninth Circuit Court said that there was a “First Amendment violation because the school punished Frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption” (Morse v. Frederick, 2007, 1). While the Ninth Circuit court came to a different conclusion than the Supreme Court did, it is important to note the mention of the substantial disruption test in this case as well.

Sources:

Roy Harris, “Freedom of Speech and Philosophy of Education” British Journal of Educational Studies 57, No. 2 (June 2009): 111-12

Tinker et al. v. Des Moines Independent Community School District et al, No. 1969 (Supreme Court of the United States)

Deborah Morse, et al., Petitioners v. Joseph Frederick, No. 06-278, 2007 (Supreme Court of the United States)

David L. Hudson Jr. “Substantial Disruption Test,” 2018, The First Amendment Encyclopedia. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1584/substantial-disruption-test (accessed 08 February 2022).

Is there a perception that this right is above or higher than other fundamental rights, or in general, that it has a particular place in a hierarchy of rights?

You could say that the right to education is above some other fundamental rights. There are two reasons for this statement. Firstly, the right to education is a necessity for the exercise of other human rights (UNESCO 2019, “Vikaspedia Domains” n.d., United Nations 2022). It’s important to ensure the development of a fully rounded human being, it’s important to combatting poverty and closing the gender-gap (“Vikaspedia Domains” n.d.). Secondly, both individuals and society benefit from the right to education, it’s “fundamental for human, social, and economic development” (“Understanding Education as a Right” 2001, “EMERGENCE of RIGHT to EDUCATION as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT-an ANALYTICAL STUDY” n.d.). So, the right to education is fundamental for human, social and economic development like the right to health, right to social security and the right to work. Because the right to education is so important to sustain other human rights and gives so many benefits for individuals and society, there is a perception that this right above (some) other fundamental rights. The right to education is a human right and some think that there is no real hierarchy between human rights (UNICEF 2015). Maurice Cranston, an English philosopher, professor, and author, doesn’t believe this. He thinks that there should be a division between traditional human rights (negative, political-civil rights) and the positive socio-economic rights. Cranston believes that positive rights are not human rights because they cannot be translated into political and legal action (Cullen n.d.). So, you can’t say that the right to education has a particular place in a hierarchy of rights. However, we have seen the reasons above and so we can state that in practice the right to education is above some other rights.

Sources:

• UNESCO. 2019. “What You Need to Know about the Right to Education.” UNESCO. February 19, 2019. https://en.unesco.org/news/what-you-need-know-about-right-education.

• “Vikaspedia Domains.” n.d. Vikaspedia.in. Accessed February 7, 2022. https://vikaspedia.in/education/child-rights/educationfundamental-human-right.

• Nations, United. 2022. “Re-Examining the Right to Education from a Contemporary Perspective | United Nations.” United Nations. United Nations. 2022. https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/re-examining-right-education-contemporary-perspective.

• “Understanding Education as a Right.” 2001. Right to Education Initiative. 2001. https://www.right-to-education.org/page/understanding-education-right.

• “EMERGENCE of RIGHT to EDUCATION as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT-an ANALYTICAL STUDY.” n.d. Accessed February 7, 2022. https://mssv.ac.in/media-library/uploads/ZYd7aknZvOdkZkOXL9p0f1o2OSotsGuiXrkRaZnc.pdf.

• UNICEF. 2015. “What Are Human Rights?” Unicef.org. 2015. https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/what-are-human-rights.

• Cullen, Patrick. n.d. “In Defense of Traditional Human Rights.” Accessed February 7, 2022. https://irhrl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Patrick-D.-Cullen-IRHRL-Second-Issue.pdf.

What specific examples of hierarchies, manifestos, constitutions, or prioritized descriptions of rights cite this right’s high status? Low status? No status at all?

There are two important international treaties involving the status of the right to education. The most important document regarding the right to education is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). In article 26 it affirms that education is a fundamental human right for everyone (UNESCO 2019,“International Law,” n.d.,Nations 2022, “Reflections on Education as a Fundamental Human - ProQuest,” n.d., “EMERGENCE of RIGHT to EDUCATION as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT-an ANALYTICAL STUDY,” n.d.). You could say that the right is universally recognized since the UDHR in 1948 (“The Right to Education,” n.d.). Another important document regarding the right to education is the UN convention on the right of the child (“Reflections on Education as a Fundamental Human - ProQuest,” n.d., “EMERGENCE of RIGHT to EDUCATION as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT-an ANALYTICAL STUDY,” n.d.). The UN convention on the rights of the child affirms that the right to education is universally recognized, it is one of the most rapidly and widely ratified human rights treaties in the world (25th Anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child” 2014). The status of the right to education is affirmed in numerous other international and regional treaties. For example: UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960), International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (1966) (“International Law,” n.d.). ‘The right to education has also been recognized in ILO Conventions and international humanitarian law’ (“International Law,” n.d.). The last important documents about the status of the right to education are constitutions. There is a wide variety in how the right to education is constitutionalized in different countries and how high the status of the right to education is. Some countries give the right to education a high status and other countries a rather low status. In some countries the right to education isn’t even constitutionalized, so it has no status at all. An important example is the United States where the right to education isn’t guaranteed in the constitution (“Ask the Expert: What Does the Constitution Say about Education? Nothing Explicitly, but That Doesn’t Mean It Can’t Help Provide Students with Equal Educational Access, Says Assistant Professor Jenn Ayscue” 2020).

Sources:

• UNESCO. 2019. “What You Need to Know about the Right to Education.” UNESCO. February 19, 2019. https://en.unesco.org/news/what-you-need-know-about-right-education.

• Nations, United. 2022. “Re-Examining the Right to Education from a Contemporary Perspective | United Nations.” United Nations. United Nations. 2022. https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/re-examining-right-education-contemporary-perspective.

• “Reflections on Education as a Fundamental Human - ProQuest.” n.d. Www.proquest.com. https://www.proquest.com/docview/818335680?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true.

• “The Right to Education.” n.d. Norad. https://www.norad.no/en/front/thematic-areas/education/right-to-education/.

• “EMERGENCE of RIGHT to EDUCATION as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT-an ANALYTICAL STUDY.” n.d. https://mssv.ac.in/media-library/uploads/ZYd7aknZvOdkZkOXL9p0f1o2OSotsGuiXrkRaZnc.pdf.

• “25th Anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.” 2014. Human Rights Watch. November 17, 2014. https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/11/17/25th-anniversary-convention-rights-child#.

• “International Law.” n.d. Right to Education Initiative. https://www.right-to-education.org/page/international-law.

• “Ask the Expert: What Does the Constitution Say about Education? Nothing Explicitly, but That Doesn’t Mean It Can’t Help Provide Students with Equal Educational Access, Says Assistant Professor Jenn Ayscue.” 2020. September 18, 2020. https://ced.ncsu.edu/news/2020/09/18/ask-the-expert-what-does-the-constitution-say-about-education-nothing-explicitly-but-that-doesnt-mean-it-cant-help-provide-students-with-equal-educational-access-says-assistant-p/.

How does federalism change, if at all, the exercise or application of this right? What examples of this can one point to?

The 1973 Supreme Court case between the San Antonio Independent School District vs. Rodriguez highlighted the inherent significance that Federalism plays as a determining factor when referring to the dilemma of ‘adequate access to education’ within America. The ‘adequacy of education’ became a set standard for schools to follow after the dissenting opinion from Rodriguez, this dissent not only emphasized the separation of state policy legislation from federal action (or inaction) under access to education, but it also reflected the effects of Federalism when analyzing state vs. federal responsibility. The level of basic goods and services provided by the state came under scrutiny after the Rodriguez dissent highlighted the responsibility that state governments had to provide an ‘adequate access to education’ for all students within corresponding state school districts. The Rodriguez case underlined a significant variation within the right to education, federalism did not limit the exercise of the right, but rather it limited the implementation of the right to education under the scope of state versus federal authority. The decision of Rodriguez redirected the perspective of viewing the exercise of the right to education as solely a state responsibility, compared to being a federal one. From the dissent in Rodriguez, the Federal government has a responsibility to provide states with adequate resources to implement fair access to education for all students, however, if the state fails to do so, it is their individual responsibility to improve their policy legislation for the benefit of their students’ wellbeing. Federalism, in practice, consists of a federal institution that does not delegate absolute authority over individual state governments, rather it divides governmental power into a dichotomous system that accounts for the needs of individual states to remain separate from those of the federal government. In cases such as Rodriguez, the exercise of the right to education remained a legal state responsibility after the dissenting opinion, this gave way for the power of federalism to remain prevalent within the decision-making process when implementing the right to education. “The Supreme Court’s ruling in San Antonio Independent School District vs. Rodriguez redirected school finance litigants from federal courts and the Fourteenth Amendment to state constitutions, state education clauses, and state courts, with mixed results.” (Heise, 2006, pg. 132). With this newfound legal decision, the state of Texas was met with a significant task, making sure that each district in TX sufficiently provided all students with proper access to education. The Federal government would continue to provide each state with a set amount of educational federal funding based upon state property taxes (corresponding to each district), in order to maintain the mutually dichotomous relationship of federalism within the public education system. In particular, the Rodriguez decision elevated the push for the Federal government to acknowledge that the right to an education was not a mutually exclusive governmental issue within Federalism; it was not just the state’s responsibility to provide fair education access for students. Federalism had split the accountability for the right to education down the middle so to speak, the federal government in the Rodriguez case had ‘done their part’, and thus it was the state of Texas’ responsibility to provide proper education to underprivileged areas of San Antonio. “In Rodriguez, the Court applied the Federal Equal Protection Clause and held that strict scrutiny was not triggered because no suspect class had been identified and students had not been completely deprived of education. Furthermore, the Court held that education was not a fundamental federal constitutional right.” (Bowman, 2016, pg. 22). The specifications within the Rodriguez dissent underlined the tricky parameters of federalism when being applied to the right to education; if the federal government had provided states with enough resources to implement education in their school districts, but states ultimately did not successfully provide students with ‘adequate’ education, then the federal government is subsequently afforded leeway. The accountability standards within the right to education rest upon the means that education is implemented, since states ultimately have decision-making power over school district resources, according to Rodriguez, they must take responsibility for not providing students with a sufficient enough education. The Supreme Court case Milliken v. Green emphasized the importance of state constitutional language when determining the importance of the right to education. “The Governor I [Milliken] court determined, based on state constitutional language and the constitutional convention, that education was a fundamental right. Combined with the wealth-based classification, recognition of education as a fundamental right triggered strict scrutiny. The state’s compelling interest asserted in this case, as in so many other school finance cases, was local control—namely, the rate of local taxation. Because the state’s annual changes to equalization funding suggested alternatives to the current system, the court determined that the current system was not the only one able to preserve the state interest of local control.” (Bowman, 2016, pg. 20). When viewing the right to education under state exceptions, it was legally regarded as a fundamental right derived from constitutional language that elevated the significance of providing the right to education under state and local authority. Federalism created a bilateral relationship between state and federal protections under the law; education was not federally recognized as a fundamental right, however, it was legally acknowledged by state constitutions (as in Milliken) as a fundamental right worthy of legal protection. The doctrine of local control expressed in the Supreme Court case of 1974, Milliken v. Bradley, emphasized that “No single tradition in public education is more deeply rooted in local control over the operation; Local autonomy has long been thought essential both to the maintenance of community concern and support for public schools and to quality of the educational process…Education is not purely a local function, instead, it is an area of ‘core state responsibility’ guaranteed by educational clauses in all 50 state constitutions.” (McGovern, 2011, pg. 1529). The article “Rodriguez Revisited: Federalism and Access”, published in 1978 by Penelope Prevolos, analyzes a series of Supreme Court cases that have been attributed as factors that affected the distribution of authority regarding the right to an education under Federalism. Following her analysis of Rodriguez, Prevolos continues on to reflect upon a Supreme Court case that dealt with the state of Illinois, IL courts had required legal defendants to pay for their own court appeals with individual fiscal responsibility. In comparison to the right to education, the Supreme Court highlighted the similarities between compulsory actions from states, such as demanding court fees be paid by the defendant, versus non-compulsory actions, such as instituting the right to education under state legislation. In Griffin v. Illinois, the dissenting opinion, “emphasized the intensity of state action involved - ([the] state [IL] required that the defendant pays for case appeals out of pocket); education is compulsory: [it] has a great influence in shaping the individual’s character and future, the state determines or delegates responsibility for determining the kind of education the individual will receive.” (Prevolos, 1978, pg.100). Aside from the obvious correlation between state legislation and implementation of a policy, education requirements and court requirements share a lot in common; the state of IL had the right to demand that defendants pay for their own appeals, however, on the other hand, the state could also institute an educational policy incentivizing students to remain in school upon completion of graduation. The state has an equal responsibility to account for the legal needs of a defendant, i.e. making sure they are financially accounting for their own court appeals, to the same extent that the state should meet the educational needs of each and every student within the state district jurisdiction. Local governments in America spend far more on education than any other service or resource, the attitude of fiscal importance surrounding the existence of fair education should extend to federal spending as well. The Supreme Court case of 1972, Wisconsin v. Yoder, emphasized in the dissenting opinion that “some degree of education is necessary to prepare students to participate effectively and intelligently in our open political system…Education, like the political rights of speech and voting, is seen as essential to the preservation of our national democracy because it is the sine qua non (translation from Latin: ‘without, which not’) of meaningful political participation, an issue Rodriguez dodged by relying on the adequacy argument.” (Prevolos, 1978, pg. 98). Following Rodriguez, State governments were aware that without federal acknowledgment of self-responsibility, the right to education would remain without Constitutional defense. Although education was regarded as a necessity to prepare students for the political system and future preservation of democracy, the lack of federal protections applied toward the right to education posed a setback for state governments. Under cooperative federalism or the inclusion of federal and state mutual cooperation for the success of policies or regulations, the system allows for states to make agreements or cooperative policies that serve to reach the same goals as those of the federal government. Cooperative federalism merely differs from federalism in that states can choose a different path than that of the federal government when taking steps to reach the desired policy outcome or goal of legal regulation. An example of cooperative federalism can be shown through the enforcement of the Affordable Care Act. The federal government implemented standards for states to meet regarding healthcare requirements and subsequently allowed states to choose their preferred method of implementation, as long as the standard requirements were met under the ACA regarding healthcare provisions. Although cooperative federalism is very effective in sufficiently giving states breathing room from strict federal policies, cooperative federalism is not always the most desirable path for the federal government's end goals. In the case of educational legislation and provisions, federalism separates state responsibility and federal responsibility based upon structural authority under the legal systemic implementations of the right to education. States can cooperatively work with the federal government to appropriately apply fiscal resources toward educational institutions; however, the federal government’s set improvement standards under federal legislation coercively prompts states to adhere to other requirements for annual federal funding. The ‘No Child Left Behind Act’ of 2001, implemented by the Bush administration stated that schools, whether or not they accepted Federal funding, must make adequate yearly progress, based on previous standardized test results from the year prior, rather than individual student growth rates to reflect annual academic achievement. “More specifically, NCLB invites us to consider whether, from a policy perspective, it is prudent to permit the federal government to exercise critical education policy influence beyond the extent of its financial contribution to states and local school districts.” (Heise, 2006, pg. 129). The Race To The Top Act of 2009, implemented by the Obama Administration stated that any US state, including D.C. and Puerto Rico, was eligible for federal education funding if they eliminated “any legal statutory, or regulatory barriers at the state level to linking data on student achievement…or student growth… to teachers and principals for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation.” (McGovern, 2011, pg. 1528). In The Fight For a Federal Right to Education, Dr. Steven Nelson illuminates several important factors that have influenced Federal oversight of educational policy and legislature. “The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, at a minimum provides students under its coverage, Federally enforceable rights to education.” (Nelson, 2019, pg. 211), this acknowledgment of education being Federally protected as a right within the IDEA justifies an aspect of Federal oversight over educational policy. Examining such an instance where students with disabilities are granted a Federally protected right to education, in this case, begs the question, what is preventing the Federal government from extending this protection to every other student in America? Following the Brown v. Board decision, schools chose to place Black schoolchildren in special education programs which led Congress to enact legal protections for children who fell victim to this racially-biased educational infringement. “Congress passed the Education of All Handicapped Children Act in 1975 in an effort to remedy the rise in the overrepresentation and seclusion of Black schoolchildren in special education programs after the court's decision in Brown v. Board.” (Nelson, 2019, pg. 213). Thus, if the Federal government acknowledges the consequences that a lack of education has on students, they have inherently acknowledged the damage that stems from deprivation of the right to education. Furthermore, why doesn’t the logic of the IDEA provision within the right to education extend to each and every student in America? The answer remains a diversely complicated one, aside from the common restrictions that Federalism produces among state and federal authority, the right to education remains without constitutional protection under Federal law; however, this does not prevent the states from solidifying the legal exercise of the right to education from being protected under a Supreme Court ruling. In 1974, the Supreme Court decided against Governor Milliken in Milliken v. Bradley, the dissent, emphasized the significance of allowing local authorities to operate and control schools. The ruling held that the Michigan public school desegregation plan that the Lower Federal court had approved, was not permissible outside of local jurisdiction. Local authoritative responsibility for the implementation of the right to education was legally held up by the decision in Milliken, while simultaneously limiting Federal authority over the exercise of exceptions to the right to education. When the Federal government implements a ‘quid pro quo’ legislation such as NCLB and Race to the Top, that supplementally institutes financial consequences for schools that fail to meet their requirement, the Federal government is explicitly putting a price tag on adequate education funding. The price of this funding ultimately adds up to how well a school can perform within the limited parameters of standardized testing achievements that heighten a circumstantial and skewed qualifying standard. “It is important to note that while equality considerations may demand some Federalization of education funding, they don't necessarily require Federalization of policy.” (McGovern, 2011, pg. 1546). When implementing educational policy on a federal level, the government has the authority to institute requirements to incentivize higher levels of student performance. For example, the federal policy NCLB of 2001 instituted provisions that required any public school would be required to meet adequate yearly progress in terms of students’ academic growth rates. With regards to educational legislation, the federal government has a responsibility to prioritize the success of public institutions over the needs of states. In practice, this can constitute promoting policy legislation that is in accordance with federal goals. “Requiring all states to pass specific legislation in order to receive extra funding is, as a practical matter, largely indistinguishable from providing money for a specific policy purpose knowing it will require considerable supplementation by state treasury.” (McGovern, 2011, pg.1539).

References: Bowman, Kristine L. "The Failure of Education Federalism." University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Forthcoming (2016). Heise, Michael. "The Political Economy of Education Federalism." (2006). McGovern, Shannon A. "A NEW MODEL FOR STATES AS LABORATORIES FOR REFORM: HOW FEDERALISM INFORMS EDUCATION POLICY." NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 86: 1519, 2011. Nelson, Steven L. "SPECIAL EDUCATION, OVERREPRESENTATION, AND END-RUNNING EDUCATION FEDERALISM: THEORIZING TOWARDS A FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO EDUCATION FOR BLACK STUDENTS." Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law 20, no. 2 (2019): 205-241. Prevolos, Penelope A. "Rodriguez Revisited: Federalism, Meaningful Access, and the Right to Adequate Education." (1979).

Limitations / Restrictions

What are the typical exceptions or limitations placed on this right?

The exceptions or limitations placed on the right to education include systemic class barriers, racial discrimination, and social/cultural disproportionality. Each of these factors affects the distribution of the specific access to education and the level at which it is adequately provided to citizens. In the United States, the typical limitations placed on the right to an education are commonly motivated by economic factors. For example, after the implementation of child labor laws in the late 1930s, many children were newly introduced to the right to an education, furthermore, a protected right for an education (Stambler, 1968, pg. 193). The motivating factor behind this progression towards upholding the right to education included both child labor injuries and deaths, as well as the social cost of depriving children of basic education and knowledge. Without educating young children and youths while their minds were still malleable, future generations would begin to witness the consequences of an uneducated group of children. The right to education has been upheld in the past based on increased social pressure to shift cultural norms surrounding child laborers, as well as economic pressure placed on legislators to further advance the American workforce and future generations for the enhancement of society as a whole (Stambler, 1968, pg. 195).

References: Stambler, Moses. "The Effect of Compulsory Education and Child Labor Laws on High School Attendance in New York City, 1898-1917." History of Education Quarterly 8, no. 2 (1968): 189-214.

Under American jurisprudence, what permissible exceptions exist?

The key difference between a protected right in America such as freedom of speech, and freedom of expression, and the right to an education includes the way that it is viewed in relation to other civil rights that are valued under American Jurisprudence. “The right to education has been recognized in a number of international covenants. Apart from the Covenant on ESC Rights, the right to education is also emphasized in Article XII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man of 1948, which proclaimed that "the right to education ‘should be based on the principles of liberty, morality and human solidarity’ and should prepare every person 'to attain a decent life, to raise his standard of living, and to be a useful member of society.’” (Wood, 2008, pg. 310). Although the right to education is significantly valued under various versions of Declarations of Human Rights, it is not legally protected under the Constitution as a civil right. In Plyler v. Doe, the right to education was further explored as a necessity to ensure the well-being of citizens and their knowledge base; “Neither is education merely some government benefit indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation. Both the importance of education in maintaining our basic institutions and the lasting impact of its deprivation on the life of the child, mark the distinction. The American people have always regarded education and the acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance. In sum, education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society.” (Wood, 2008, pg. 317). Rather than dismiss the right to an education as an extra “benefit” for the citizens of America, it was recognized as a key component of continuing the success of society. An example of a past permissible exception to the right to an education was documented in a case study regarding the process of integration within Denver Public Schools in the mid-1950s. In an attempt to increase ‘cultural pluralism’ (or student diversity), Denver Public Schools failed to adequately integrate public schools in the surrounding metro area. Many schools in Denver at the time were populated by either predominantly African American, predominantly Latinx, or predominantly white student populations (Romero II, 2004, pg. 77). Ethnic and income level integration was rare, based on the fact that the DPS district had no interest in integrating schools that they were solely responsible for. After a violent altercation broke out at a high school that was failing to be properly integrated, DPS had to address the public outcry over their malfeasance. Their proposed solution was to close down one high school and open another that was set to be integrated. Instead of properly supplying the new school with resources and well-trained teachers, they were given mediocre funding and resources so that DPS could claim deniability. The polarization in Denver at the time (briefly following the Little Rock Nine event) became increasingly volatile, to the point that white high schools in higher-income areas were receiving SAT prep classes, foreign language classes, as well as many other advanced academic resources. Simultaneously, in lower-income neighborhoods that had higher populations of Hispanic and African American students in the Denver Metro area; their high school courses included home economics, English language classes, and a variety of other educational resources that were weak in comparison to the level of quality academic resources provided to the wealthier areas (Romero II, 2004, pg. 81). The effect of this permissible exception to the right to education, due to the failure from DPS to protect the right to education without consequences of discrimination infringing upon education, underlines the consequences of an unchecked permissible exception with regards to the right to education. The permissible exception, utilized through tools such as redlining and racially based school segregation to separate education access to disproportionately affect a minority group in the 50s, was strategically used to further advance the educational inequalities between POC students and white students in Denver. This exception to the right to education, which is still ongoing in America to a degree (based upon socioeconomic status in a particular region) is still legally permissible under the Constitution and consequently through the separation of governmental power within Federalism. State governments can amend their Constitutions to mandate guidelines surrounding school district codes and educational access, however, if their federal funding falls short of the status quo, then states are left to deal with the lack of resources themselves. (Former) President George W. Bush first introduced the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, the explicit goals of the Act stated that the United States government must adequately provide access to education for all children residing in America. The respective state government is responsible for providing public education based on its Congressional-approved curriculum and budget, regarding class courses and available state resources (Ryan, 2003, pg. 2). The goals of the ‘No Child Left Behind Act’ were closely related to boosting the academic success of children in public schools. The ultimate goal of the act was to ‘eliminate the achievement gap between low-income area and higher-income area schools’ that were subsequent results of low attendance and inadequate public school funding. The NCLBA stated that schools must meet proficient level scores on state-administered standardized tests. These schools which received federal funding were additionally subjected to sanctions if they did not reach the minimum proficiency scores required by the state. Thus, these ‘underperforming’ schools were labeled as ‘low-success’ in comparison to successful performing schools that would not receive penalty sanctions for their proficiency test score achievement. The incentives used in the NCLBA utilized a duality of positive and negative reinforcements to encourage the elimination of the achievement gap. These incentives that are categorized by the author as ‘perverse’ embody an example of a permissible exception to the right to education, instead of forcing each child to perform at an advanced level, the federal government imposed such incentives to maneuver a legal technique to efficiently raise school performance without infringing upon educational access at the state level. Although under American Jurisprudence the right to education is significantly valued, at the federal level, education is seen as a means to an end. The permissible exception to the right to education under NCLB of 2001underlines the way that an exception can be used to thwart an educational agenda to serve the needs of the federal government in terms of educational funding and the use of test score incentives. First, a negative incentive was enforced by using penalty sanctions to punish underperforming schools. Next, a positive incentive was utilized to establish an achievable goal for students to meet in order to boost their test growth rates. Although this incentive to continue to encourage students to try their hardest was not effective, the standardized test scale disproportionately advantaged schools with a few numbers of test questions, questions that were strategically easy to answer, as well as utilizing testing ranks to push lower-performing students out of certain schools. By dividing children’s performances into categories such as ‘low performance’, ‘proficient’, and ‘advanced’, the NCLBA promoted perverse incentives for schools to divide children into categories based on income, race, and background (Ryan, 2003, pg. 8). In order to boost their school’s ranking, institutions would be allowed to propose to parents to move their children to another school if they did not reach the minimum performance level on standardized state tests. This further encouraged schools to push out ‘underperforming’ students to avoid penalty sanctions and further negative consequences from not meeting the proficiency test rank level. Under the NCLBA, schools were also forced to make adequate yearly progress, regardless of if they were receiving federal funding. Thus, all schools in America were pushed to ‘make progress’ every year regardless of their previous student growth rates, this attitude further created an unrealistic proficiency level made to push out low-performing students from schools (Ryan, 2003, pg. 12).

References: Ryan, James E. "The Perverse Incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act." Public Law Working Paper 03-17 (2003). Wood, Emily H. "Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the Right to Education in American Jurisprudence: Barriers and Approaches to Implementation." Hastings Women’s Law Journal 19, no. 2 (2008): 303.

Utilitarian / Fairness Assessments

Is there a cost attached to protecting and enforcing this right? What kinds of costs are implicated?

As of 2022, the United States spends $586.4 billion dollars on K-12 education, which equates to about $14,455 per student (Education Data Initiative). This cost covers the cost of paying teachers and other school staff, as well as textbooks and school supplies. This money helps to provide the resources necessary to ensure that all students can receive the right to an education. Other costs that may be associated with protecting and enforcing the right to education are court costs. When cases go to court regarding the right to education, such as Wisconsin v. Yoder, there are court costs associated, such as the cost of lawyers and judges, to protect the right to education.

Sources: Melanie Hanson, “U.S. Public Education Spending Statistics” Education Data Initiative, https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics (accessed 28 March 2022).

Short-term economic cost in general

The short-term economic cost of the right to education is the cost it takes to run a school on a daily basis.

Long-term economic cost in general

The long-term economic cost of the right to education is the cost that it makes to run a school on a yearly basis, and beyond that.