A Research Paper submitted

on

CONVENTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION.

IN COMPLIANCE TO THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE MARKING SCHEME,

FOR SEMESTER-V OF 2019-20, IN THE SUBJECT OF HISTORY-III

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Bhumica Veera
Prof. Dr. Nazima Munshi
Roll No. 27

B.A. LL.B (Hons.)

(Third Year)
 Contents
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...................................................... 11
CHAPTER 3 PROVISIONS AND CLAUSES .................................................. 23
CHAPTER 4 : CASES AND PERFORMANCE OF VARIOUS STATES....... 38
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION, RECCOMENDATIONS AND FURUTRE
SCOPE ................................................................................................................ 42
CHAPTER 5 BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................... 48
 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Centrality of education in people’s lives is being increasingly recognized in today’s globalized

world. Education is invaluable for empowering individuals and for social transformation.
It has a key role in preparing children for democratic citizenship and responsibilities of
future. Education is also central to poverty eradication strategies and the achievement
of global commitments for sustainable development. It is fundamental building block
for human development. As the Human Development Report 2012 mentions, the growth
in Human Development Index is associated with growth in public spending on education.
(UNDP, 2012, p.78). As such, a central place must be accorded to the right to education in
development thinking.

Education is both a human right in itself and an indispensable means of realizing other
human rights. 1 As proclaimed in article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the right to education is an inalienable human right of every child – boys and
girls alike. UNESCO’s Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960) is the fi
rst instrument which provides for the right to education comprehensively. It establishes the
fundamental principles of universal access to education and ensuring equality of
educational opportunities. The Convention reflects UNESCO’s mission of instituting
collaboration among nations to “advance the ideal of equality of educational opportunities
without regard to race, sex or any distinctions, economic or social.” 2 The Constitution
of UNESCO expresses the belief of its founders in “full and equal opportunities for education
for all.” Under Article 4 of the Convention, the States Parties to this Convention undertake to
formulate, develop and apply a national policy which, by methods appropriate to the
circumstances and to national usage, will tend to promote equality of opportunity and of
treatment in the matter of education.The right to education is also comprehensively covered
in article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. States
have the principal responsibility for the direct provision of education, with core obligations
clearly related to the principle of equality of opportunity: to ensure the right of access to public
educational institutions and programmes on a non-discriminatory basis and to provide
primary education for all in accordance with article 13 (2) (a) of the International
Covenant.1The right of every child to education on the basis of equal opportunity is

1
Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Education. The Case of Adolescent Girls
in Tanzania [interactive]. [accessed 05-06-2010]. <http://www.right-to-
education.org/sites/r2e.gn.apc.org/files/Case_Study_Tanzania[1].pdf>
2
General Comment 13 on the right to education (Article 13 of the Covenant), adopted by the Committee
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at its twenty-first session in 1999. E/C. 12/1999/10, (para.6).
also established in article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The
Committee on the Rights of the Child has recognized the need for identifying and
giving priority to marginalized and disadvantaged groups of children, while not neglecting
or diluting in any way the obligations which States parties have accepted under the
Convention.

Other human rights treaty bodies have also stressed obligations connected to ensuring
equality of opportunity in education. Article 10 of the Convention on the Elimination
of All forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW, 2004) contains detailed
provisions related to equality of opportunity in education and “the equal rights of women
and men in the fi eld of education.” Furthermore, the Convention requires that women be given
an equal start and that they be empowered by an enabling environment to achieve equality of
results. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination addresses inter alia
“measures in the field of education”, pursuant to article 5 of the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which protects the right to education
and training for everyone without discrimination. The Committee has especially addressed
issues of access to education, quality of education, drop-out rates, and special measures
to ensure inclusion of communities which face discrimination (CERD, 2000; 2002).The United
Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) specifically mentions
in Article 3 equality of opportunity as a general provision of the treaty. Article 24 of
the Convention has detailed provisions concerning the right of persons with disabilities
to education “without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity.” Of particular
importance is Article 24 (2) (b) which provides that “States shall ensure that ... persons
with disabilities can access an inclusive, quality and free primary education and secondary
education on an equal basis with others .....”The right to education on a basis of equality
is also protected by the International Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers
and Members of their Families. Specifi cally, Article 30 provides that “[e]ach child of a
migrant worker shall have the basic right of access to education on the basis of equality
of treatment with nationals of the State concerned.” Articles 43 and 45 further emphasize
equality of treatment for migrant workers and members of their families in relation to access
to educational institutions, as well as vocational training. Thus, equality of opportunity in
education is a fundamental principle, common to almost all international human rights
treaties. It enjoins upon States parties to these treaties international obligations of
permanent nature for promoting and protecting the right to education without
discrimination or exclusion in a way that it is fully respectful of equality of opportunity
in education. Free and compulsory primary education is an inalienable right of every
child, and a core obligation of States under international human rights treaties. Beyond primary
education, the right to education also extends to secondary education as well as the
progression towards higher education. Its enjoyment is subject to the criteria of merit
or capacity, while respecting the fundamental principles of non-discrimination and
equality. The obligations assumed by States under human rights treaties range from
ensuring universal access to primary education to progressive access to secondary education
and higher education on the basis of capacity. The right to education is not only recognized as
an entitlement, but as a source of empowerment.

UNESCO has the constitutional mission of instituting collaboration among nations to “advance
the ideal of equality of educational opportunity without regard to race, sex, or any distinctions,
economic or social.” The Convention Against Discrimination in Education, adopted by
UNESCO on December 14 1960, reflects this mission. This Convention, which entered into
force on May 22, 1962 and has thus far been ratified by 91 states, is UNESCO’s first major
international instrument which has binding force in international law; it prohibits all
discrimination based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national
or social origins, economic condition, or birth.

The abiding significance of the Convention is indicated by the fact that it has often been
mentioned in the other instruments concerning the right to education adopted by UNESCO.
The importance of the Convention is also recognized in the work of the United Nations
concerning the right to education. Thus, Article 13 on the right to education of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1976), drafted upon the proposal of
UNESCO, is inspired by provisions of the Convention. In addition, the Convention is
mentioned several times in the General Comment 13 on the Right to Education, elaborated by
the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR) in collaboration with
UNESCO. The Convention also appears in resolutions on the right to education adopted by
the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The fundamental principles of non-
discrimination and equality of opportunity in the domain of education, established in the
Convention, are essential in the process of Education for All (EFA). The Convention of 1960
has thus naturally become the cornerstone of this high priority domain for UNESCO. In order
to achieve equal opportunity for all in the domain of education, we have much work ahead of
us to ensure that education becomes truly inclusive, in particular by effectively reaching the
unreached--especially the poor, marginalized and vulnerable groups, children and young
people denied equal access to education, rural populations, etc.
Adopted on 14 December 1960 by the General Conference of UNESCO, the Convention
against Discrimination in Education3 was the outcome of long deliberations and numerous
studies carried out in the preceding years. The task thus accomplished is an important one
because “of all forms of discrimination, those that occur in education are the most pernicious
– because they affect the very essence of the individual and society, namely the forming of the
mind – and the most abhorrent – because the victims are first and foremost children”.

At the invitation of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations,4the Sub-
Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities appointed a
Special Rapporteur, Mr Charles Ammoun, in 1954 and entrusted him with the task of preparing
and submitting to it a detailed report on that particularly delicate question. In Mr Ammoun’s
words, “The prevention of discrimination touches upon many legitimate national
susceptibilities. It involves a whole psychological or political climate or even an entire
philosophy. It concerns the lives, futures and right to a better education of millions of children”4

The report was submitted to the Sub-Commission in February 1957.5 In his conclusions,
Mr Ammoun formulated some basic principles and recommended that they be incorporated
into an international convention. The Sub-Commission endorsed a large part of the report’s
proposals and adopted a number of resolutions in which it set out several options for the
elaboration of an international instrument to prevent discrimination in education. The three
options were as follows:(1) the Economic and Social Council would be entrusted with the
preparation of the instrument;(2) UNESCO should consider the possibility of drafting one or
more international instruments;(3) a place might be found within the draft International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for the basic principles endorsed by the
Sub-Commission.

Having before it the proposals of the Sub-Commission at its thirteenth session in April 1957,
the Commission on Human Rights decided to consult the States. At the Commission’s
fourteenth session, in March 1958, there was disagreement as to the form the instrument should
take, although many members agreed that it would be for UNESCO to elaborate the necessary
instrument or instruments.In October 1958, the Director-General of UNESCO affirmed, in his
report on the advisability of preparing one or more international instruments designed to

3
The Convention entered into force on 22 May 1962; text available on the Internet: www.UNESCO.org
4
Charles D. Ammoun, Study of Discrimination in Education Study of Discrimination in Education, cited by P.
Juvigny, , cited by P. Juvigny, The fi ght against discrimination: The fight against discrimination: towards
equality in education towards equality in education, Paris, UNESCO, 1962, p. 9. See also the English version of
the report by Mr Ammoun , Paris, UNESCO, 1962, p. 9. See also the English version of the report by Mr
Ammoun (the only version now available), E/CN.4/Sub.2/181/Rev.1, p. vii.(the only version now available),
E/CN.4/Sub.2/181/Rev.1, p. vii.
5
UNESCO/ED/DISC/SR.1, p. 3
eliminate and prevent discrimination in the field of education,8 that it was up to the General
Conference to decide whether the question of the prevention of discrimination in education
should be “regulated at the international level in the sense of the Rules of Procedure
concerning recommendations and international conventions [and] to determine to what extent
the question could be regulated and whether the method adopted should be one or more
international conventions or one or more recommendations to Member States”.9 In 1958,
at the 10th session of the General Conference, a resolution on that item was accordingly
adopted.10 Under the resolution, “UNESCO shall take responsibility for drafting
recommendations to Member States and an international convention on the various aspects
of discrimination in education”. The Director-General was authorized to prepare a preliminary
report, and to draft recommendations and a draft convention to be circulated to Member States
for comment. He was also authorized to convene a committee of technical and legal experts
with a view to submitting revised drafts of the recommendations and of a convention to the
General Conference. Lastly, at the 11th session of the General Conference the Programme
Commission set up a Working Party to examine the draft amendments submitted to the session
by various delegations and to make recommendations in that regard to the Programme
Commission.After this brief overview of the different stages leading to the adoption of the
Convention against Discrimination in Education,11 we turn now to our analysis of the
Convention itself. It should be noted here that numerous programmes subsequently provided
further input to the Convention.

Realizing the right to education for everyone is one of the major challenges faced today when
millions of children and adolescents remain out of school. The monitoring of the right to
education in the context of Education 2030 and the Sustainable Development agendais
of crucial importance to guarantee government accountability and transparency.
Emphasizing the state legal obligations will ensure that the objectives and targets will not
be empty promises of the international community. The purpose of the onvention against
Discrimination in Education, a cornerstone of Education 2030, is the adoption of concrete
measures aimed at promoting equality of opportunities and treatment in this field. As a
powerful tool for supporting the implementation of Education 2030 agenda, the monitoring
of this instrument is of crucial importance in order to counter persistent inequalities in access,
participation and learning outcomes at all levels and ensure an education that is equitable
and truly inclusive. Under Article VIII of UNESCO’s Constitution, Member States are
required to submit regular reports on the measures taken to implement the conventions
and recommendations. In accordance with the specific multi-stage procedure for the
monitoring of the implementation of UNESCO’s conventions and
recommendations for which no specific institutional mechanism is provided (adopted in
2007 and amended in 2015), the frequency for submitting such reports is set at
four-year intervals. The Recommendation against Discrimination in Education is
monitored in conjunction with the Convention. The reporting obligation under the
provisions of Article VII of the Convention and of the Recommendation is the same.

Respecting the diversity of national education systems, the UNESCO’s Convention against
Discrimination in Education protects the educational rights of national minorities. The States
Parties to this Convention agree that “It is essential to recognize the right of members of
national minorities to carry on their own educational activities, including the maintenance of
schools and, depending on the educational policy of each State, the use or the teaching of their
own language, provided however, (a) That this right is not exercised in a manner which
prevents the members of these minorities from understanding the culture and language of
the community as a whole and from participating in its activities, or which prejudices national
sovereignty; (b) That the standard of education is not lower than the general standard laid
down or approved by the competent authorities.” (Article 5 (1) c). The States Parties
to this Convention have undertaken to take all necessary measures to ensure the application
of the principles enunciated above.

The UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960)17was the first

international treaty to be adopted concerning education as such. The Convention is the first
legally binding instrument which provides for standards and a quality of education. Article 4
of the UNESCO Convention foresees: The States Parties to this Convention undertake ...:(a)
To make primary education free and compulsory; make secondary education in its different
forms generally available and accessible to all; make higher education equ-ally accessible to
all on the basis of individual capacity; assure compliance by all with the obligation to attend
school prescribed by law;(b) To ensure that the standards of education are equivalent in all
public educational institutions of the same level, and that the conditions relating to the quality
of the education provided are also equivalent;(c) To encourage and intensify by appropriate
methods the education of persons who have not received any primary education [...];The
Convention also separately determines that rights of national minorities should be given
insistent attention as those groups are one of the most vulnerable. It has to be noted that
Convention against Discrimination in Education refers to the general principle of “equal
opportunity” in education as the basis of action to be taken by States Parties with a view to
achieving the right of the child to education. In fact, the “Convention was designed in part to
promote this principle”.6 The Convention expresses another fundamental principle—that of
non-discrimination. This principle is inextricably linked with the principle of equality of
educational opportunities. The Convention prohibits any “discrimination” or any distinction,
exclusion, limitation or preference, “based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or
other opinion, national or social origin, economic condition or birth” (Article 3 of the
Convention and Preamble to the Convention).These provisions provide a normative basis for
continuing educati-on and learning, and the right to basic education for youth and adults. The
Convention provides for the parental choice of education and freedom in education. It enjoins
upon States Parties the obligation to respect the liberty of parents and, where applicable, of
legal guardians—firstly, to choose institutions other than those maintained by the public
authorities for their children. Such education should, however, conform to minimum
educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the competent authoritiesBut the
provisions of the Convention further foresee situations which would not be deemed to
constitute discrimination. It is allowed to establish or maintain separate educational systems or
institutions for pupils of the two sexes, if these systems or institutions offer equivalent access
to education, provide a teaching staff with qualifications of the same standard as well as school
premises and equipment of the same quality, and afford the opportunity to take the same or
equivalent courses of study. Additionally, the same possibility is provided for religious or
linguistic reasons, of separate educational systems or institutions offering an education which
is in keeping with the wishes of the pupil’s parents or legal guardians, if participation in such
systems or attendance at such institutions is optional and if the education provided conforms
to such standards as may be laid down or approved by the competent authorities (Article
2).“The particular significance of the Convention is demonstrated by the frequency with which
it is mentioned in other instruments concerning the right to education adopted by the United
Nations and by its recognition under modern international law”.7The Convention has been cited
in numerous decisions by law courts. Rich jurisprudence exists as regards the principle of
equality of educational opportunities in several countries—notably in the USA, India, South
Africa, Canada, and several other European countries. For example, the Supreme Court of
Mauritius has brought into prominence the importance of abiding by the Convention. The Court
considered the issues in the light of the provisions of the Convention and held that “it is a well-

6
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural organization [interactive]. [accessed 15-09-2019].
<http://www.unesco.org/en/right-to-education/normative-action/fundamental-principles/equality-of-oppor-
tunity-and-treatment/>.
7
Significance of the Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960) [interactive]. UNESCo Publica-tion,
2005, p. 10 [accessed 04-09-2019]. <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001537/153765E.pdf>.
recognized canon of construction that domestic legislation, including the Constitution, should
if possible, be construed so as to conform to such international instrument as the Convention”8

Although it must be stated that the main purpose and subject of the Convention—to implement
non-discrimination and the principles of equality to education—the provisions of the
Convention do not interfere with education systems existing in individual countries and takes
into account the standards of the national education system.

8
Ten Reasons Why The Convention against Discrimination in education is Highly Significant in Today‘s World
[interactive]. UNESCo Publication, 2007, p. 6 [accessed 04-09-2019].
<http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001537/153765E.pdf>.
 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Name: The Protection of the Right to Education by International Law: Including a

Systematic Analysis of Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights

Author: Klaus Deiter Beiter

Year of Publication: 2006

Publisher: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

A trend has emerged of not defining education as a "human right" anymore, but of rather calling
it a "human need." This has paved the way for an ever-increasing commercialisation of
education, excluding the poor from access to education. A problem at a different level is that
states often do not know what is expected of them when realising the right to education as
protected by international law. This relates to the complex nature of this right, which is
simultaneously a civil and political "and" an economic, social and cultural right. This book
seeks to affirm education as a "human right" and to describe the various state duties flowing
from the right to education. It refers to the provisions on the right to education found in
instruments of international law and systematically analyses article 13 of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The book is of interest to students,
teachers, researchers, legal practitioners and state and international officials dealing with
international human rights law. The author states that, 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.

Title : Discrimination in Elite Public Schools: Investigating Buffalo

Editors: Gary Orfield, Jennifer B. Ayscue

Publisher : Teachers College Press, 2018

School choice is an increasingly important part of today’s educational landscape and this timely
volume presents fresh research about the competitive admissions policies of choice systems.
Based on their investigation of a unique civil rights challenge to school choice admissions
policies in politically and racially divided Buffalo, New York, and the struggle to open its best
schools to students of color, authors Orfield and Ayscue contend that without intentional effort,
choice systems are likely to exacerbate problems of inequality and segregation. Focusing on
issues that will continue to be contested in the courts and in the policy arena, the authors offer
research-based recommendations for reducing barriers to enrollment and for creating
competitive-admissions choice systems that will allow all students access to important
educational opportunities. The book outlines specific steps school systems can take, including
developing a district-wide diversity plan, providing more accessible information, conducting
holistic admissions processes, expanding the availability of choices, and offering preparation
programs to assist students long excluded from these highly competitive schools.

Title Populism, Media and Education: Challenging discrimination in

contemporary digital societies
Routledge Research in Education
Editor Maria Ranieri
Edition illustrated
Publisher Routledge, 2016

Based on a major research project funded by the European Commission, Populism, Media and
Education studies how discriminatory stereotypes are built online with a particular focus on
right-wing populism. Globalization and migration have led to a new era of populism and racism
in Western countries, rekindling traditional forms of discrimination through innovative means.
New media platforms are being seen by populist organizations as a method to promote hate
speech and unprecedented forms of proselytism. Race, gender, disability and sexual orientation
are all being used to discriminate and young people are the preferred target for populist
organizations and movements. This book examines how media education can help to
deconstruct such hate speech and promote young people’s full participation in media-saturated
societies.

Drawing on rich examples from Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Italy, Slovenia, and the
UK - countries characterized by different political and cultural contexts – Populism, Media and
Education addresses key questions about the meaning of new populism, the nature of e-
engagement, and the role of education and citizenship in the digital century.

With its international and interdisciplinary approach, this book is essential reading for
academics and students in the areas of education, media studies, sociology, cultural studies,
political sciences, discrimination and gender studies.
Title Faces of Discrimination in Higher Education in India: Quota policy, social justice
and the Dalits

Routledge Research in Educational Equality and Diversity

Author Samson K. Ovichegan

Edition illustrated

Publisher Routledge, 2015

This book illuminates the experiences of a set of students and faculty who are members of the
Dalit caste – commonly known as the ‘untouchables’ – and are relatively ‘successful’ in that
they attend or are academics at a prestigious university. The book provides a background to the
study, exploring the role of caste and its enduring influence on social relations in all aspects of
life. The book also contains a critical account of the current experiences of Dalit students and
faculty in one elite university setting – the University of Shah Jahan (pseudonym). Drawing on
a set of in-depth semi-structured interviews, the empirical study that is at the centre of this book
explores the perceptions of staff and students in relation to the Quota policy and their
experiences of living, working and studying in this elite setting. The data chapters are organised
in such a way as to first explore the faculty views. The experiences of students are then
examined with a focus on the way in which their caste is still an everyday part of how they are
sometimes ‘othered’. Also, a focus on female Dalit experiences attempts to capture the
interconnecting aspects of abject discrimination in their university life. Faces of Discrimination
in Higher Education in India explores:

critical exploration of the Quota System policy and related social justice issues;

faculty voices: Quota, caste and discrimination;

students’ perceptions and experiences of the Quota policy;

being a ‘female Dalit’ student;

positioning caste relations and the Quota policy: a critical analysis.

This study will be of interest to educational sociologists examining policies in education and
analysts of multicultural and South Asian studies. It will also steer pertinent discussions on
equality and human rights issues.
Title Dalit Women's Education in Modern India: Double Discrimination

Routledge Research on Gender in Asia Series

Author Shailaja Paik

Publisher Routledge, 2014

Inspired by egalitarian doctrines, the Dalit communities in India have been fighting for basic
human and civic rights since the middle of the nineteenth century. In this book, Shailaja Paik
focuses on the struggle of Dalit women in one arena - the realm of formal education – and
examines a range of interconnected social, cultural and political questions. What did education
mean to women? How did changes in women’s education affect their views of themselves and
their domestic work, public employment, marriage, sexuality, and childbearing and rearing?
What does the dissonance between the rhetoric and practice of secular education tell us about
the deeper historical entanglement with modernity as experienced by Dalit communities?

Dalit Women's Education in Modern India is a social and cultural history that challenges the
triumphant narrative of modern secular education to analyse the constellation of social,
economic, political and historical circumstances that both opened and closed opportunities to
many Dalits. By focusing on marginalised Dalit women in modern Maharashtra, who have
rarely been at the centre of systematic historical enquiry, Paik breathes life into their ideas,
expectations, potentials, fears and frustrations. Addressing two major blind spots in the
historiography of India and of the women’s movement, she historicises Dalit women’s
experiences and constructs them as historical agents. The book combines archival research with
historical fieldwork, and centres on themes including slum life, urban middle classes, social
and sexual labour, and family, marriage and children to provide a penetrating portrait of the
actions and lives of Dalit women.

Elegantly conceived and convincingly argued, Dalit Women's Education in Modern India will
be invaluable to students of History, Caste Politics, Women and Gender Studies, Education
Studies, Urban Studies and Asian studies.

Title : Race, Class, and Education: The Politics of Second-generation Discrimination

La Follette public policy series

Authors Kenneth J. Meier, Joseph Stewart, Robert E. England

Publisher Univ of Wisconsin Press, 1989

While most school systems have undergone some formal desegregation to eliminate inequities
in access to education, inequities—and discrimination—nonetheless remain. In this study
covering 170 major school districts during the years between 1968 and 1984, the authors
discuss the remaining obstacles to equal opportunity in education.

Clustering of students into separate classes or groups of classes based on perceived learning
potential is one form of discrimination that remains; disciplinary policy resulting in suspension
or expulsion is the other. Based on their findings, Meier, Stewart, and England argue that the
single most important factor in improving the access of black students to equal educational
opportunities is having black teachers in the classroom, a goal attainable through use of the
political system.

“In a very concise book, Meier, Stewart, and England . . . build a damning case against standard
education policies as contributors to the resegregation of our schools. . . . In the process, they
give us an excellent example of what good policy analysis is by carefully blending empirical
documentation with evaluation and prescription.”

Title : A Human Rights-based Approach to Education for All: A Framework for the
Realization of Children's Right to Education and Rights Within Education

Author : Unesco

Edition: illustrated

Publisher : UNICEF, 2007

The goal of a human rights-based approach to education is to assure every child a quality
education that respects and promotes her or his right to dignity and optimum development. This
publication provides a framework of strategies and actions necessary to translate children's
right to education and rights within education into legislation, policies and programs for the
attainment of education for all. The text is illustrated by case examples from a variety of
countries. Several appendices are also included to provide background information and
elaborate on issues raised in the framework, including standards on child participation, human
rights education, and international goals and commitments. Also included is a checklist of
actions necessary to achieve a rights-based approach to education and a bibliography of
relevant documents, websites and initiatives.
Title World Education Report 2000: The Right to Education: Towards Education for
All Throughout Life

Volume 5 of World education report

Author Unesco

Edition 5, illustrated

Publisher Unesco, 2000

Original fromUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

This report presents a broad but concise analysis of major trends and policy issues in education
in the world today. It focuses on the right to education, as proclaimed in Article 26 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The report presents a unique overview of the
successive commitments to the implementation of this right that have been adopted by the
international community over the past half-century, in the form of international treaties,
declarations, recommendations and programmes of action. It also provides a broad analysis of
the progress that has been made towards the implementation of this right in different region of
the world. The Appendices of the report include a detailed account of how Article 26 came to
be written, as well as World Education Indicators giving country-by-country data on key
aspects of education in over 180 countries, summary tables by major world region, and a
complete list of UNESCO's reports, publications and periodicals concerning education in the
period 1997-1999.

Title : Article 28: The Right to Education, Volume 28 of A commentary on the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Author Mieke Verheyde

Publisher Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006

This volume constitutes a commentary on Article 28 of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child. It is part of the series, "A Commentary on the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child," which provides an article by article analysis of all substantive,
organizational and procedural provisions of the CRC and its two Optional Protocols. For every
article, a comparison with related human rights provisions is made, followed by an in-depth
exploration of the nature and scope of State obligations deriving from that article. The series
constitutes an essential tool for actors in the field of children's rights, including academics,
students, judges, grassroots workers, governmental, non- governmental and international
officers. The series is sponsored by the "Belgian Federal Science Policy Office,"

Title American Dream and Public Schools

Authors Jennifer L. Hochschild, Nathan Scovronick

Publisher Oxford University Press, 2004

The American Dream and the Public Schools examines issues that have excited and divided
Americans for years, including desegregation, school funding, testing, vouchers, bilingual
education, and ability grouping. While these are all separate problems, much of the contention
over them comes down to the same thing--an apparent conflict between policies designed to
promote each student's ability to succeed and those designed to insure the good of all students
or the nation as a whole. The authors show how policies to promote individual success too
often benefit only those already privileged by race or class, and often conflict with policies that
are intended to benefit everyone. They propose a framework that builds on our nation's rapidly
changing population in order to help Americans get past acrimonious debates about schooling.
Their goal is to make public education work better so that all children can succeed.

Jennifer Hochschild is Professor of Government at Harvard University, with a joint

appointment in the Department of Afro-American Studies and the author of Facing Up to the
American Dream. Nathan Scovronick teaches education policy and directs the undergraduate
program at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton
University.

Deem, Rosemary. 2012. Women and Schooling. London: Routledge. Accessed October 3,
2019. ProQuest Ebook Central.

This book begins with an analysis of the gradual extension of educational opportunities for
women since the nineteenth century, with special attention given to the period since 1944.
There is careful exploration of the interaction between the family and the school, and an
examination of their role as institutions which help to maintain the existing class relations,
sexual division of labour and ideology of a capitalist society. Rosemary Deem also looks at
how these institutions differentiate the socialization, culture and education of girls from that of
boys, and considers the implications of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Opportunities
Commission for education. Chapter I The Entry of Women into Mass Education in a Capitalist
Society The development of mass education in England and Wales since the beginning of the
nineteenth century has been marked by three crucial divisions: social class, ability and sex. The
first has been given extensive treatment by sociologists and educationalists, and has been of
implicit concern to many other groups interested in education.' The second has been
exhaustively researched by both psychologists and sociologists, and their investigations have
been used t o justify and to deplore differential educational provision on the basis of ability
level.2 The third division, sex, has been the subject of much less analysis. Certainly a Report
published in 1923 noted that girls were more lethargic in their school perforrnance than were
boys, and more likely to take arts subjects, which required less effort than sciences or practical
subject^.^ Although subsequent official reports on education have dealt in passing with the
difficulties of educating girls in both academic subjects and the domestic arts,4 there have been
relatively few attempts systematically to analyse the education experiences and performances
of girls in comparison with those of boys. No great endeavour has been made to discover
whether sexual divisions are as relevant to education as are class and ability divisions. Only in
the 1960s and 1970s with the growth of a significantly sized Women's Liberation Movement
in Britain and the progress of legislation relating to equal treatment of males and females in
public life,6 have sexual divisions in education come to be perceived as a problem of
considerable significance.

The Resegregation of Schools : Education and Race in the Twenty-First Century, edited
by Jamel K. Donnor, and Adrienne Dixson, Routledge, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,
https://ezproxy.svkm.ac.in:2087/lib/nmims-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1211737.

Access to a quality education remains the primary mechanism for improving one's life chances
in the United States, and for children of color, a "good education" is particularly linked to their
individual and collective well-being. Despite the popular perception that America is in a "post-
racial" epoch, opportunities to access quality learning environments and human development
resources remain determined according to race, class, gender, and ability. Taking a more
nuanced approach to race and the resegregation of the American school system, this volume
examines how and why the education quality for the majority of students of color in America
remains fundamentally unequal.
The United States has long struggled with the concept of equality in public education, with race
having often been the determining factor in the provision of educational services and
opportunities. Though nearly 60 years have passed since the landmark Supreme Court decision
in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), educational inequities still exist in America. Thus, this
chapter chronicles the use of race as the legal determiner of educational opportunity in the
nation’s education system, to show how the property line now takes the place of race. We argue
that although Brown’s desegregation movement was a valiant effort to champion education
equity, where one resides has become the “new” proxy for race in distributing quality
educational opportunities in this “colorblind” American society. Despite this unfortunate
circumstance, the United States must create an equitable, 21 st century education system for all
of America’s students. The welfare of our nation depends on it. Laying the Education
Foundation: Early Inequity in American As early as 1849, courts in the United States wrestled
with the issue of race in public education. In Roberts v. The City of Boston (1849), Benjamin
Roberts brought suit on behalf of his daughter, Sarah, challenging the regulations of the Boston
City School Committee.

Gender, Policy and Educational Change : Shifting Agendas in the UK and Europe, edited
by Sheila Riddell, and Jane Salisbury, Routledge, 1999. ProQuest Ebook Central,
https://ezproxy.svkm.ac.in:2087/lib/nmims-ebooks/detail.action?docID=165564.

Gender equality has been a major educational theme for the past two decades and has become
interwoven with other policy themes, including those of marketisation and managerialism.
Contributors to this strong collection are key researchers in their fields and seek to address the
following questions: * What patterns are discernible in the educational attainment of girls and
boys over the past two decades? * To what extent are changes attributable to gender equality
policies? * What form have gender equality policies taken in different parts of the UK? * What
has been the impact of European equality policies? * How have gender equality policies been
experienced by particular groups including pupils from ethnic minority and working-class
backgrounds? This book aims to take an overall look at how significant have been the changes
in experiences, aspirations and culture of girls and boys and male and female teachers. It
explores how attempts to improve equal opportunities in education have fared and examines
the tensions and contradictions in recent policies.

ARTICLES
DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION

Author(s): Lawrence Bloomgarden

Source: The American Jewish Year Book, Vol. 55 (1954), pp. 23-26

Published by: American Jewish Committee; SpringerStable

URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23603603Accessed: 03-10-2019 22:27 UTC

Touring the period under review (July 1, 1952, through June 30, 1953) theprincipal arena in
the fight to end educational segregation of Negroes ^‫ •*־־‬shifted to the United States Supreme
Court, where the issue of the validity of segregation laws in elementary and secondary schools
was contested. Five cases arising out of court decisions in South Carolina, Virginia, Kansas,
Delà ware, and the District of Columbia were argued before the United States Supreme Court
in December 1952. The decisions hinged upon the interpre tation by the Supreme Court of the
Fourteenth Amendment requiring states to provide "equal protection" of law. Six months after
the cases had been argued, the Justices of the Supreme Court were reported to be hopelessly
divided on matters of law and public policy involved. The Supreme Court ordered a re-
argument of the issues, to take place on October 12, 1953, one week after the commencement
of its fall term. (The date was later changed at the request of the Attorney General to December
1953.) The Court indicated the nature and extent of its per plexities by asking counsel to discuss
and brief five specific phases of the cases for the re-argument. One of the questions raised was:
If a decision were to be rendered holding that segregation in public schools violated the Four
teenth Amendment, would it be a proper exercise of the Supreme Court's powers to "permit an
effective gradual adjustment to be brought about from existing segregated systems to a system
not based on discrimination.

Daniel Reichert-Facilides, Down the Danube: The Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties and the Case Concerning the GabcïKovo-Nagymaros Project, Cambridge
University Press, 2008.

“Over the last 30 years, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties1 has emerged as one of
the most influential instruments of modern international law. The Convention, which was
adopted at the UN Conference on the Law of Treaties on 23 May 1969, entered into force on
27 January 1980 and has meanwhile been ratified by more than 80 States. Yet, as it does not
operate retroactively, the scope of application is growing only slowly and its practical
importance stems, rather, from the fact that the Convention is widely considered a restatement
of customary international law. As early as 1971 the International Court of Justice referred to
the articles governing termination for breach of treaty as a codification of the existing law on
the subject. Since then both international tribunals and national courts have more and more
habitually relied on the material provisions of the Convention to ascertain traditional rules of
the law of treaties.”

Enzo Cannizzaro, Jus Cognes, The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention,
OSAIL, 2011.

“This chapter deals with the notion of conflict between treaties and jus cogens. It suggests that
the classical notion of conflict — conceived of as the impossibility to apply two mutually
exclusive rules simultaneously — is inappropriate with regard to the relations between ordinary
rules and higher law. A broader notion of conflict, which encompasses also other forms of
interference between higher law and inferior law, should be adopted instead. This broader
notion can also contribute to determining the role of jus cogens in the legal regime of State
responsibility.”

Prescribing National Education Policies: The Role of International Organizations

Author(s): Connie L. McNeely

Publication No. 4 (Nov., 1995), pp. 483-507

Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Comparative and
International Education SocietyStable URL:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1189148Accessed: 03-10-2019 22:36 UTC

Education has been central to conceptions of development and of nation building and creating
a national citizenry. Moreover, cast as a primary human right, education has been depicted as
necessary to the fulfillment of individual basic needs. This fundamental image has informed a
great deal of comparative research on education in nation-states and on the related world-level
diffusion of related ideas and ideals and practices. Presently, much of this work is from an
institutionalist perspective-pos- iting that national education ideals and practices reflect and
respond to international cultural and organizational themes and imperatives. This is expressed
as a process of institutionalization, or the establishment of consist- ent principles and the
tendency for those principles to guide behavior. Indeed, comparative research has demonstrated
amply the isomorphic and convergent character of education and its supporting ideologies and
practices throughout the international system.
What we now need is a more general research agenda on the formula- tion and transmission of
world-level educational ideals and prescriptions to individual countries. For example, how
precisely does the international system act to determine national educational ideology,
structure, and prac- tice? What are the sources of transmission and diffusion of world educa-
tional principles? To what extent are they actually adopted by the states in the international
system, and what is the process by which this comes about? I suggest that examining related
international governmental orga- nization practices and interactions with nation-states may be
an instructive and constructive research strategy for answering these questions, as well as more
substantively elaborating the process of institutionalization.

PACKER, JOHN. “The Content and Aim of Minority Education from the Perspective of
the International Instruments.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights,
vol. 4, no. 2, 1996, pp. 171–174. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24674536.

The essential content of all education in a free and open society is directed towards the
formation of mature adults capable of responsible citizenship. This means to equip young
people to become free agents able to choose and pursue their own interests and to contribute to
a vibrant society. Ultimately, it is to facilitate freedom with a view to attaining peace, security
and prosperity. Since not all persons share the same world-view, language or culture, there
exist varying perspectives on the content, approach and media of education. In so far as world-
view, language and culture are intimately connected to the identity of persons belonging to
national minorities, education is of special significance for them. Their views, interests and
needs, therefore, must also be accommodated if everyone is to be equally free. Accommodation
of minority language education is especially vital because it is essential for maintenance of
identity. The importance of minority education in the New Europe has already been described
by Mr. Stobart. And the content of The Hague Recommendations Regarding the Education
Rights of National Minorities has been explained by Professor Eide. As indicated in its
Explanatory Note, The Hague Recommendations are clearly rooted in the international
instruments which have been adopted by the international organizations in which all States
represented here participate either as Members or Observers - whether it be one or all of the
United Nations, the Council of Europe or the Organization for Security and Cooperation.
 CHAPTER 3 PROVISIONS AND CLAUSES

Preamble : Before turning our attention to the specific provisions of the preamble to the
Convention, we should like to make some comments about the date of its adoption and to raise
the question of whether it might not have been possible to adopt such an instrument some years
earlier. The answer is that, considering the different stages leading to the adoption of a
convention of that kind, it would not have been possible to achieve such a result more rapidly.
The Convention was certainly not the first international instrument to deal with the prevention
of discrimination; others had already been adopted by the International Labour Conference to
prevent discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.9Yet the 12 years that had
elapsed since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights cannot be considered
too long; it took that amount of time to gauge “the diversity of specific national situations” to
which the provisions adopted were to apply. Moreover, it was deemed preferable to wait15
“before taking standard-setting action, for the Commission on Human Rights to have read” the
report by Mr Ammoun.16The preamble to the Convention against Discrimination in Education
is an extension of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,10 which, as the preamble states,
“asserts the principle of non-discrimination and proclaims that every person has the right to
education”. More specifically, the preamble refers to Articles 2 and 26 of the Declaration.
Paragraph 4 refers to the Constitution of UNESCO which affirms in its preamble that “the
States Parties to this Constitution, believ(e) in full and equal opportunities for education for all,
in the unrestricted pursuit of objective truth, and in the free exchange of ideas and knowledge”.

That is not the only reference to education in the Constitution of UNESCO: Article 1.2(b)
stipulates that the “Organization will [...] give fresh impulse to popular education and to the
spread of culture: by collaborating with Members, at their request, in the development of
educational activities; by instituting collaboration among the nations to advance the ideal of
equality of educational opportunity without regard to race, sex or any distinctions, economic
or social; ...”.Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UNESCO
Constitution are the only international instruments mentioned in the preamble to the
Convention, other texts served as sources of inspiration, such as the resolution adopted by the

9
H. Saba, “La Convention et la Recommendation concernant la lutte contre la discrimination dans le domaine
de l’enseignment” (The Convention and the Recommendation against Discrimination in Education), AFDI,
1960, p. 647
10
“Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments”, United Nations, New York, 1988, pp. 1-7.
General Conference of UNESCO in 1956 inviting the Member States to take all appropriate
measures to eliminate racial discrimination.11To go back to the wording of the preamble itself,
it may be seen that there is no enumeration or single formula for the factors constituting
discrimination. That may be explained by “the differences noted in the enumeration of the
factors of discrimination listed in [UNESCO’s] Constitution, depending on whether the
reference was to respect for human rights or the achievement of equality of opportunity”.19
Since the Convention itself contained an enumeration, the Committee of Governmental
Experts considered it superfluous to mention those factors in the preamble.20The fifth
preambular paragraph of the Convention reflects the outcome of the debate within the Working
Party set up by the Programme Commission. The Working Party ultimately amended the
paragraph by adding the following: “while respecting the diversity of the national educational
systems”.

“The change made in the original text [was] the result of a proposal by the French delegation
put forward during the discussion of the draft amendment submitted by the delegation of
Mexico, which initially related to Article 4 of the Draft Convention.”21 The delegate of
Mexico, having noted that some provisions of the Convention departed from its subject –
discrimination – and touched upon education systems existing in individual countries,
expressed a fear lest those provisions might cast doubt upon principles regarded as fundamental
in certain countries, such as the principle of undenominationalism. He therefore suggested that
the national policy which States would, under the terms of Article 4, undertake to develop
should take into account the standards of the national education system. There was, in his view,
no ground for supposing that the reference to those standards might be intended to “cover
discriminatory measures, since, in the same paragraph, the States (...) undertook to proscribe
and prevent discrimination”.22 He considered it essential to prevent any lack of clarity in the
text from casting doubt on the incompatibility that existed in Mexico between the clergy and
the teaching profession. Account was taken of that position and the draft convention was duly
amended, although no changes were made to Article 4. Instead, it was unanimously agreed that
the best way to respect the diversity of nation educational systems was to mention it in the
preamble. The final wording is very close to Article 1(3) of the Constitution of UNESCO which
reads: “With a view to preserving the [...] fruitful diversity of the cultures and educational
systems of the States Members of the Organization, the Organization is prohibited from

11
M. Konishi, Convention concernant la lutte contre la discrimination dans le domaine de l’enseignement
(contribution de l’UNESCO à la protection des droits de l’homme) (The Convention against Discrimination in
Education (UNESCO’s contribution to human rights protection)). Report presented to the centre for studies in
international law and international relations at The Hague Academy of International Law. Peace Palace, The
Hague, at the session: 15 VIII-22 IX, 1967, pp. 6-8
intervening in matters which are essentially within their domestic jurisdiction”.The wording of
the preamble thus highlights the twofold objective of the Convention, which deals with the
elimination and prevention of discrimination and with equality of opportunity.12

ARTICLE 1 : Article 1 of the Convention defines both the terms “discrimination” and
“education” as a necessary preliminary before setting forth the substantive obligations. As was
pointed out, “[these] definitions are of prime importance, for they determine the scope it is
intended to give to the Convention and, consequently, the extent of States’ undertakings”. The
remainder of Article 1 of the Convention sets out a non-exhaustive list of precise examples of
discriminatory measures by way of illustration of the general definition provided earlier.The
second term defined in Article 1 is “education”. Here the Convention considers it solely in
terms of the different levels of education (primary, secondary, higher), the quality of
education and the conditions under which it is dispensed. It does not provide for non-
discrimination in regard to access to the teaching profession, which is not mentioned until
Article 4(d).

Article 2: A preliminary remark is in order with regard to the structure of Article 2. The list of
situations is preceded by the phrase: “When permitted in a State, the following situations shall
not be deemed to constitute discrimination, within the meaning of Article 1 of this
Convention”. That was not the wording adopted by the Committee of Governmental Experts,
but was an amendment introduced by the Working Party on the draft convention and
recommendation against discrimination in education, following a proposal to delete
subparagraph (b) made by the delegation of Mexico, which argued that the wording as it stood
might present a difficulty for countries where members of religious orders were debarred from
the teaching profession. Indeed, “the convention might be interpreted as authorizing the
opening of religious schools”37 and as allowing discrimination between different religions.
That difficulty demonstrates, as C. Ammoun reminds us, that “the struggle between the State
and the churches is a long-standing one”. For other delegations, however, subparagraph
(b) represented part of the definition of discrimination. Mexico agreed to withdraw its proposal
to delete paragraph (b) in return for the inclusion of the words: “without prejudice to the
constitutional principles of States in which the educational system is officially based on
undenominational teaching”. Ultimately, a third form of words was chosen for the final version
of the Convention.Paragraph (a) of Article 2 of the Convention was the subject of lengthy
debate within the Special Committee of Governmental Experts, thus highlighting the

12
Document 11 C/PRG/36, p. 3.22 . Document 11 C/PRG/36, p. 3.
importance of the choice of words and the meaning that could be attributed to them. In the draft
convention concerning discrimination in education, the following wording was used: “The
establishment or maintenance of separate education systems or institutions for pupils of the
two sexes shall not be deemed to constitute discrimination if these systems or institutions offer
equivalent facilities of access, have equipment of the same quality and provide an
education of the same standard”.13 That wording implied that education must be provided at
the same level, although no reference was made to curricula.

Article 3: Founded upon the two fundamental principles of non-discrimination and equality of
opportunity, the Convention lays down several obligations the nature of which varies
depending on whether they are related to one or the other of those principles. Article 3
accordingly sets forth precise obligations to counter discrimination while Article 4, considered
to be a “framework text”, is aimed at the progressive achievement of equality of opportunity.
As pointed out in the report of the Special Committee of Governmental Experts, the draft
initially presented by the Director-General echoes the principles laid down by the United
Nations Sub-Commission.14 One finds, for example, practically the same wording in the first
principle laid down by the Sub-Commission and in Article 3(b) of the draft convention
concerning discrimination in education.52 It should, however, be noted that the
draft53proposed variants. That was the case in the aforementioned subparagraph in which the
words “in fact” were suggested. Similarly, subparagraph (c) simply proposes to add
respectively the words “in law”* and “in fact”** to the provision which reads: “The States
Parties to this Convention undertake: ... (c) to provide [*] and enforce [**] conditions
applicable equally to all governing admission to any public educational institution ...”. The
distinction between fact and law was already to be found in the questionnaire sent to States
with a view to drawing up a draft convention.

Article 4: Article 4, described as a “framework text”,defines the goals and the different stages
of national policy-making as a function of the level of education (primary, secondary and
higher). National policy must ensure free and compulsory primary education. For the other
levels, States have lesser obligations. Secondary education must be accessible to all; higher
education must be so also, but on the basis of individual capacity.65 Those different objectives
simply take up those laid down in less precise terms66 in Article 26(1) of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.A question relating to the principle of equality of access at the

13
Document ED/167 – Add.1, Annex II
14
UNESCO/ED/167/Add.1, Annex I (Analysis of replies and comments received from Member States of
UNESCO and international non-governmental organizations to the questionnaire contained in the
preliminary report on discrimination in education)
different levels of education had already been submitted to States in the questionnaire sent to
them. The States had unanimously replied that the proposed convention should contain an
article stipulating that the “Member States recognize in their laws and regulations and apply in
their national practice the principle of equal access to education at all levels and of all types”A
unanimous response in regard to the principle does not mean, however, that all the States agreed
on the contents of the article. Draft article 4, as initially proposed, was in fact amended. In the
draft convention against discrimination in education, the wording in subparagraph (a) –
“assure compliance by all with the obligation to attend school prescribed by law” – was
missing from the text. That stipulation was in the draft convention but under Article 3(b),
whichprovided that “The States Parties to this Convention undertake ... (b) to assure [in fact]
universal compliance with the duty to attend school prescribed by law”. Putting the wording
elsewhere in the Convention thus resolved the problems of interpretation that had been raised70
and, in so doing, modified the scope of the undertaking by States.15

Article 5 : Article 5, paragraph 1(a), after a number of draft amendments, by and large contains
the definition of the aims of education found in Article 26, paragraph 2, of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.79 The other subparagraphs of the Article closely reflect the
proposals made by the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities80 and relate to the choice of schools by parents, religious education and the right of
members of national minorities to engage in educational activities and in the management of
schools.In regard to parents’ freedom to choose a school, two questions arising from the fourth
principle established by the Sub-Commission were raised in the document drawn up by the
Director-General on the content and scope of the proposed regulation. The first was “whether
the denial of freedom of choice of school to parents in itself constitutes discrimination in the
sense intended in the proposed instruments ... since the latter deal with inequality of treatment
of groups in the exercise of rights in education, not the assertion of rights as such”.The second
question was whether the right to establish private schools should be enunciated in the proposed
instrument. The answer to the second question is found in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 1
which specifies that: “It is essential to respect the liberty of parents and, where applicable, of
legal guardians, firstly to choose for their children institutions other than those maintained by
the public authorities.”.

Article 6 : By way of preliminary comment, it must be noted that the Recommendation against
Discrimination in Education differs from the recommendations contained in Article 6 of

15
Document ED/DISC/5, Rev., p. 9.
the Convention. It was adopted on the same day as the Convention, and on that date the
Convention had obviously not yet entered into force. Furthermore, Article 6 specifically states
that “in the application of this Convention, the States Parties to it undertake ...”. The fact is that
the adoption of the Recommendation against Discrimination in Education was prompted
specifically by the difficulties encountered by some States in becoming Parties to a convention-
type instrument; for example, in view of the distribution of powers within some federal States,
responsibility for educational decisions falls within the purview of federal bodies and not
within that of the central authorities. Under Article 6 of the Convention, States Parties
“undertake to pay the greatest attention to any recommendations hereafter adopted by the
General Conference”. From a terminological point of view, the Convention uses the word
recommendation. In fact, an analysis of the texts adopted by the General Conference at its
various sessions shows that it adopts many resolutions but very few recommendations.
On the question of combating discrimination in education, many resolutions have been
adopted in connection with the periodic reports submitted by States to the General
Conference at various sessions.

Article 7 : Article 7 of the Convention against Discrimination in Education was applied

quite soon after it came into force in 1962, for, “in accordance with the Director-
General’s proposals to the twelfth session of the General Conference, the Approved
Programme and Budget for 1963-1964 provides, in connexion with the application of the
Convention and Recommendation against Discrimination in Education, that ‘a draft plan for
periodic reports by Member States to the General Conference on implementation of the
Convention and Recommendation, including detailed indications concerning the preparation
of first reports, will be prepared for submission to the General Conference at its thirteenth
session’...”. Before actually drawing up a plan, the Secretariat consulted the Sub-Commission
on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, which considered that “the
submission of periodic reports by States constitutes one of the essential elements in the
practical application of the international instruments adopted in the field of discrimination”.
These first stages constituted the starting point of a mechanism that led to the consultation of
the States Parties to the Convention on six occasions. The periodic reporting mechanism was
already well known in international, we don’t need no education, no dark sarcasm in the
classroom, teacher’s leave those kids alone, before the entry into force of the Convention
against Discrimination in Education. The International Labour Organization used it
regularly, thus contributing to the application by Member States of the conventions and
recommendations that it had adopted.
Article 8 : Article 8 of the Convention against Discrimination in Education, like other articles,
was discussed at length during the preparatory work. Two specific points are, however, worthy
of mention. The first is that the article was discussed in plenary at the General Conference and
put to a separate vote. The second is that the General Conference adopted a resolution at its
11th session requesting the General Conference “to prepare a draft protocol instituting a
conciliation and good offices committee competent to seek a settlement of any disputes which
may arise between States Parties concerning the application or interpretation of the
convention”, deciding “to convene an ad hoc committee, consisting of governmental experts
from Member States” and instructing it to consider the draft protocol drawn up by the Director-
General and to report to it thereon at its 12th session.

As a result of the resolution, Article 8 was indirectly the starting point for the drafting of the
Protocol instituting a Conciliation and Good Offices Commission to be responsible for seeking
the settlement of any disputes which may arise between States Parties to the Convention against
Discrimination in Education.137 Before describing the Commission, its development and its
operation in detail, we propose to go back over the debates on Article 8 during the preparatory
work and at the plenary meeting of the General Conference. As pointed out in the preliminary
report, “in drawing up conventions, while the determination of measures for their application
on the national level is normally a matter left to States, it is usual to insert in the international
law. Give me my library, give me infrastructure, give me reimbursement for my international
law moots. Article 8 to be amended.

When he took the floor for the second time,16 he stressed that it was impossible for his country
to ratify the convention as it stood and that about 40 other States which otherwise approved the
substance of the draft convention were in the same position. Venezuela’s argument concerned
the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and more specifically the optional clause
providing for compulsory jurisdiction. Although Venezuela was a Party to the Statute of the
International Court of Justice and had accepted its jurisdiction, it had not made the declaration
accepting the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, under which a State is required to appear before
the Court on a unilateral request. This was exactly what was being imposed by Article 8 as it
stood after the Working Party’s debates. It was therefore very clear that its wording ran counter
to those States’ position and would oblige them to accept under a particular convention, namely
the Convention against Discrimination in Education, something that they had always generally
rejected. In view of this situation, which constituted a serious obstacle for many States, a vote

16
See supra, footnote 12.
was taken on the article. Following the vote, Article 8 was amended and the phrase “at the
request of one of the parties” was replaced by the words “at the request of the parties”, this
latter wording implying a joint submission and consequently excluding the possibility of a
unilateral submission to the Court.17

Article 9 : The question of permitting reservations to a multilateral treaty is always a relatively

delicate one. It entails a choice between two separate objectives: one founded on the desire to
ensure that the instrument adopted is supported as widely as possible – by permitting the
expression of reservations170 – and the other aimed at ensuring the integrity of the convention
and the uniformity of the obligations undertaken by the States Parties. Unlike the UNESCO
Constitution, which contains no reference to reservations, the Convention against
Discrimination in Education explicitly prohibits reservations.171The matter had
nevertheless been discussed at the preparatory meetings. According to the report by the
Committee of Governmental Experts, a draft amendment to delete the article had been
submitted. In fact, the absence of a provision on reservations would have given rise to a
measure of uncertainty since there were no absolute rules on the subject, the International Court
of Justice having merely stated in an advisory opinion of 28 May 1951: “In the absence of any
express provisions on the subject, to determine the possibility of making reservations as well
as their effects, one must consider their character, their purpose, their provisions, their mode of
preparation and adoption.”18

Article 10 : Article 10, as it now stands in the Convention, was proposed quite late in the
process. In fact, the draft convention concerning discrimination in education appended to the
Director-General’s report contained only 18 articles.178 The proposal to insert an article on
the effects of the Convention on bilateral treaties and agreements was not made until the Special
Committee of Governmental Experts’ meeting of 13 to 29 June 1960. The Committee rejected,
however, the proposal to insert an article worded as follows: “Bilateral treaties or agreements
regulating any matter dealt with in this Convention shall not be affected by this Convention if
those treaties or agreements are not against the spirit of this Convention.”179 The Committee
was of the view that a special article on bilateral agreements was not necessary because such
agreements continued to be binding on States and were not affected by the Convention
against Discrimination in Education. Nevertheless, an alternative was considered to ensure that
the Convention would not be interpreted as diminishing rights and guarantees granted by other

17
Bastid (S.), op. cit., pp. 11-12
18
Advisory opinion relating to reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide (1950-1951), 28 May 1951, ICJ Reports 1951.
bilateral treaties. It was therefore suggested that a safeguarding clause, similar to the one
provided for in the draft international covenants on human rights, be inserted into the
Convention.180 The Working Party established by the Programme Commission re-examined,
however, the question of inserting a new article into the Convention. In the amendments to the
draft Convention that it proposed, it used a different wording from the one initially suggested,
we were both young when first saw you, The newly inserted article may be said to have set the
seal on equality of opportunity and action to combat discrimination in education, since the
obligations set forth in the Convention constitute what may be considered a minimum standard
that might be enhanced by the provisions of other bilateral or multilateral instruments.

Article 11: The four languages listed as authentic reflect the fact that the Organization’s official
languages at the time were English, Spanish, French and Russian. By comparison, the
Convention on Technical and Vocational Education, adopted in 1989, was draw up in six
languages (English, Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, French and Russian), as the status of official
language of the Organization had by then been granted to other languages.

Article 12 : This provision reflects the custom in practice when the Convention was
drafted. Accordingly, the Convention leaves it to States to determine under which procedure
of domestic law they will express their consent to be bound by the Convention (the choice then
was generally limited to ratification and acceptance). It also assigns the function of depositary
(see Article 17) to the most senior officer of the organization under whose auspices the
Convention has been adopted.

Article 13 : This article illustrates the desire of this Convention’s negotiators to ensure that it
would be an instrument of universal scope, for it is open not only to UNESCO Member States
but also to States that are not members. The approach taken by the drafters of the article must
be seen in conjunction with comments on Article 9,182 namely that the drafters of the
Convention opted for uniform obligations under the Convention even if that meant accession
by a smaller number of States Parties. The provision as it stands actually suggests that it was
not really a matter of choosing between two different options but rather of combining them:
the Convention should not be open to any unilateral modification in respect of any of the
obligations established therein, but at the same time it was intended to bind as many States as
possible. The goal of universality has to do with the very aim and purpose of the Convention
and with what its implementation may mean for the future of millions of children. Knew you
were troubled when law walked in, so shame on law right now, took me to places never been
in international conventions. Accession, a procedure open to States that had not taken
part in the negotiation – namely States not members of UNESCO in 1960 – is not, however,
completely free but forms part of a process controlled by the Organization. To be specific,
States not members must be invited to accede to the Convention by the Executive Board

Article 14 : Article 14, as mentioned above, is one of the Convention’s final clauses and
concerns its entry into force. Attention should be drawn to one particular feature, however. The
article provides that the “Convention shall enter into force three months after the date of the
deposit of the third instrument of ratification”. The number of instruments required may seem
very small in comparison with the number of instruments of ratification required for the entry
into force other conventions relating to discrimination 186 or, more generally, human
rights.187 An analysis of UNESCO’s standard-setting instruments on education suggests,
however, that this remark must be qualified somewhat. Under the other instruments, the
number of instruments of ratification that must be deposited varies from two to ten. For
instance, the entry into force of the Agreement for Facilitating the International Circulation
of Visual and Auditory Materials of an Educational, Scientific and Cultural Character (1948)
requires the deposit of ten instruments, while several regional conventions concluded under
the auspices of UNESCO require only two188 (this low figure may be explained,
however, by the small geographical coverage of those conventions). It may be noted,
however, that the Convention on Technical and Vocational Education (1989) requires the
deposit of the same number of instruments of ratification or accession as the Convention
against Discrimination in Education. Although this number is undeniably small, it is
nonetheless consistent with the approach adopted in UNESCO’s other standard-setting
documents and permitted the rapid entry into force of the Convention and effective action to
combat discrimination in education. Pursuant to the provisions of this article, the Convention
came into force on 22 May 1962. In October 2003, there were 90 States Parties to the
Convention (and 32 States Parties to the Protocol).186. See, for example, Article 27 of the
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, which provides
that the Convention shall enter into force after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of
ratification or accession.187. The European Convention on Human Rights requires life had just
begun, now gone and thrown it all away the deposit of ten instruments of ratification in order
to come into force (Article 66, para. 2) while the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child
requires twenty (Article 49, para. 1).188. See the Regional Convention on the Recognition of
Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean
(1974), the Regional Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Certificates, Diplomas,
Degrees and other Academic Qualifications in Higher Education in the African States (1981),
and the Regional Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas, and Degrees in Higher
Education in Asia and the Pacific (1989)

Article 15 : One question in the questionnaire sent to Member States before the Director-
General drafted his report containing the draft convention concerning discrimination in
education concerned trust and non-self-governing territories. It was worded as follows: “Do
you consider it desirable that the proposed convention should contain a clause whereby
contracting states may extend the application of the convention to all or any of the territories
for whose international relations they are responsible?” The majority of the Organization’s
Member States replied in the affirmative except for one State, which considered that the draft
convention should not contain such a provision. The non-governmental organizations were
unanimously in favour of such a provision. Two different proposals for the wording of the
article were contained in the draft produced at the end of the consultation. The first proposal
simply stated that a State might apply the Convention “to all or any of the territories for whose
international relations it is responsible” after it had declared such extension by notification
addressed to the Director-General.190 This type of wording corresponds to the classic “colonial
clause” under which “any State may declare at any time that the Convention shall extend to all
or any of the territories for whose international relations it is responsible he second proposal
was more detailed.

It stated the principle of the application of the Convention to all territories, while stressing that
the State Party should secure the consent of the non-metropolitan territory concerned if that
State’s laws or constitutional practices so required. The second wording drew heavily on the
provisions of the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade
and Institutions and Practices similar to Slavery (1956)193 and on the Convention on the
Nationality of Married Women (1957).A third proposal had also been made during the
preparatory work and it provided for the Convention to be applied “not only to metropolitan
territories ... but also to all non-self-governing, trust, colonial and other territories ...”.In the
end, the text of the Convention was based on the second form of words proposed in the draft
convention concerning discrimination in education while taking the third proposal into
consideration.

Article 16: This article contains a denunciation clause under which States Parties may be
released from their obligations. This option is recognized in most international treaties,
including those on human rights. Denunciation is a unilateral act by the State making the
denunciation, but it does not take immediate effect since 12 months’ notice is required. That is
a fairly common period in treaty practice even though different examples can be found (six
months under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and five years under the
European Social Charter, for example). By comparison, the amount of notice to be given under
the Convention on Technical and Vocational Education is exactly the same as under this
Convention. It may also be noted that the wording used in Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention
on Technical and Vocational Education differs only very slightly from that used earlier in
Articles 16 and 17 of the Convention against Discrimination in Education.

Article 17: In accordance with established and very widespread practice, the chief
administrative officer of the organization within which a multicultural convention has
been adopted is assigned the role of depositary of the instrument. The Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties provides that: “The functions of the depositary of a treaty are
international in character and the depositary is under an obligation to act impartially in their
performance.”The depositary keeps custody of the original text of the treaty and registers it
with the Secretariat of the United Nations (see Article 19 below), receives the instruments in
which States establish their intention to be bound by the treaty and also notifications of
denunciations, and is responsible for informing other States of such events in the life of the
instrument concerned.19

The General Conference of UNESCO may revise the Convention. Under the rules laid down
in its Rules of Procedure, it may adopt, by a majority vote of its Member States, “a new
convention revising this Convention in whole or in part”. This somewhat ambiguous wording
is to be understood as providing an alternative between, on the one hand, the substitution of a
wholly new convention for the one adopted in 1960 and, on the other, a revision of the 1960
Convention in part by means of an additional protocol distinct from the original instrument.
Neither of these two options is straightforward for, as Ch. Rousseau has pointed out, “the
procedure, orthodox though it is, has its disadvantages in that it may well lead to the coexistence
of two or more sets of standards if all States Parties to the original Convention do not become
parties to the subsequent convention(s)” and, furthermore, “trying to amend treaties with due
regard for the intention of each and every Contracting Party is like trying to square the circle”.

Article 18: A revision of the Convention, whether in whole or in part, may result in there being
a number of different legal systems for combating discrimination in education. The fact is that

19
Modeen (T.), “La convention de l’UNESCO concernant la lutte contre la discrimination dans le domaine de
l’enseignement et les îles d’Aland”, in Revue des droits de l’homme, 1977, Vol. 10, pp. 249-270 (especially pp.
249-258).
States refusing to become parties to the new instrument would continue to be bound by the
original version of the Convention while, conversely, States ratifying the new treaty or
acceding to it would be bound only by the Convention as amended or by the Convention that
replaces it, as the case may be. It is easy to imagine the problems that would arise from such a
situation. 20

Article 19: This provision is intended to ensure that international conventions are
publicized. It goes without saying that all conventions concluded under the auspices of or
within organizations belonging to the United Nations family contain a provision on compliance
with this registration requirement.The Convention was registered with the Secretariat of the
United Nations on 29 May 1962 under No. 6193 (together with the 1962 Protocol).21 It was
published in Volume 429 of the United Nations Treaty Series (the Protocol is in Volume 651)

Finally the treaty mentions that “Done in Paris, this fifteenth day of December 1960, in two
authentic copies bearing the signatures of the President of the eleventh session of the General
Conference and of the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization, which shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and certified true copies of which shall be
delivered to all the States referred to in Articles 12 and 13 as well as to the United Nations.The
foregoing is the authentic text of the Convention duly adopted by the General Conference of
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization during its eleventh
session, which was held in Paris and declared closed the fifteenth day of December 1960.IN
FAITH WHEREOF we have appended our signatures this fifteenth day of December 1960.”22

Analysis of the treaty and author’s remarks :

Since its adoption by UNESCO’s General Conference in 1960, the Convention against
Discrimination in Education has been at the forefront of the Organization’s standard-setting
instruments in the field of education. It has so far been ratified by 104 Member States and
UNESCO is now urging the remaining countries to do so with its #RightToEducation
campaign.

20
Blat Gimeno (J.), “La influenca de la UNESCO en las politicas educativas nacionales”, pp. 1183-1196 in
Federico Mayor, Amicorum Liber: solidarité, égalité, liberté, Vol. II, Brussels, Bruylant, 1995, xlix-1379 p.
21
Bastid (S.), “Une nouvelle commission de conciliation”, pp. 1-12 in Mélanges offerts à Henri Rolin, Paris,
Pedone, 1964, lxx-536 p
The Convention reaffirms that education is not a luxury, but a fundamental human right. It
highlights States' obligations to ensure free and compulsory education, bans any form of
discrimination and promotes equality of educational opportunity. The treaty comprehensively
covers the right to education and is the only one entirely dedicated to it. The Convention is
recognized as a cornerstone of the Education 2030 Agenda and a powerful tool to advance
inclusive and equitable quality education for all.

What does the Convention guarantee?

States that have ratified the Convention are under the obligation to implement the right to
education as it is elaborated in the text including, among other provisions, the obligation of the
state to provide free and compulsory education.

The main provisions of the treaty include:

 Primary education free and compulsory

 Secondary education in its different forms, generally available and accessible to all
 Higher education equally accessible to all on the basis of individual capacity
 Equivalent standards of education in all public educational institutions of the same level
and conditions relation to quality
 Opportunities for continuing education
 Training opportunities for the teaching profession without discrimination

The Convention also ensures

 Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the
strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
 The liberty of parents to choose for their children’s education in conformity with their
moral and religious beliefs
 The right of members of national minorities to carry on their own educational activities.
 Why ratify the Convention now?
 As a standard-setting Organization, UNESCO encourages Members States to ratify
normative instruments in order to achieve universal adherence to its norms and
standards. This Convention is the first and only legally binding international treaty
exclusively dedicated to the right to education and is considered to be a foundation of
the Education 2030 Agenda.
Ratifying the Convention:

 Shows the adherence of the country to rights set forth by the Convention, including the
fundamental principles of non-discrimination, equality of treatment and of educational
opportunities
 Ensures the respect of all rights laid down in the Convention
 Joins the community of States that are already party to the Convention and adopt the
same normative framework
 Participates in the strengthening of international norms and standards in education
 Gives higher visibility to the Convention, and raises awareness
 The Convention does not admit any reservation, meaning that ratifying States cannot
decide to exclude certain aspects or provisions from the legal effect of the Convention;
therefore, the Convention is fully applicable to all its State Parties.
 CHAPTER 4 : CASES AND PERFORMANCE OF VARIOUS STATES

Both the CADE and the ICESCR express objectives of education laid down in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. According to Article 13(2) of the ICESCR, the full realisation
of this right envisages compulsory and free primary education for all, accessibility to
secondary general education, including technical and vocational secondary education and
higher education with progressive introduction of free education and liberty for parents to
choose schools for their children.

(a) Availability – The availability of the educational institutions and programmes have
to be in sufficient quantity within the jurisdiction of the state party. All institutions and
programmes are likely to require buildings with adequate facilities ofsanitation facilities for
both sexes, safe drinking water, trained teachers receiving domestically competitive
salaries, teaching materials, and so on; while some will also require facilities such as a library,
computers and information technology.23

(b) Accessibility – The educational institutions and programmes have to be accessible to

everyone, without discrimination, within the jurisdiction of the state party. Education
must be accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable groups, in law and fact, without
discrimination. The educational institution has to be within safe physical reach, by attendance
at some reasonably convenient geographic location. Education has to be affordable to all.
This dimension of accessibility is subject to the differential wording of Article 13(2) in
relation to primary, secondary and higher education:

(c) Acceptability – The form and substance of education, including curricula and
teaching methods, have to be acceptable to students and, in appropriate cases, parents; this is
subject to the educational objectives required by Article 13(1) and such minimum
educational standards as may be approved by the state according to Articles 13(3) and (4).

(d) Adaptability – The education has to be flexible so it can adapt to the needs of
changing societies and communities and respond to the needs of students within their diverse
social and cultural settings.

Indian Position

23
V. Kartashkin, ‘Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’, in K. Vasak (ed.),The International Dimension of Human
Rights (UNESCO, Paris, 1982), vol. 1, pp. 111–133
The importance of education was emphasised in the “Neethishatakam” by Bhartruhari (1st
Century B.C.) as follow: Education is the special manifestation of man;Education is the
treasure which can be preserved without the fear of loss; Education secures material pleasure,
happiness and fame; Education is the teacher of the teacher; Education is God incarnate;
Education secures honour at the hands of the State, not money. A man without education is
equal to animal.47Post-independent India inherited a system of education which was
characterised by large scale inter- and intra-regional imbalances. The system educated a
select few, leaving a wide gap between the educated and the illiterate. Educational inequality
was aggravated by economic inequality, gender disparity and rigid social stratifications.
Since independence, there has been a growing realisation that development would never
become self sustaining unless it is accompanied by corresponding changes in the
attitudes, values, knowledge and skills of the people as a whole and that the only way this
change can be accomplished is through education.

The leaders of India’s freedom struggle fully realised that in the new dispensation
following political freedom, the people should have the fullest opportunities for
advancement in the social and economic spheres and that the state should make suitable
provision for ensuring such progress. The framers of the Indian Constitution borrowed
the idea of enacting the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) from the Irish
Constitution. The Indian Constitution was adopted on 26 November 1949 by the
Constituent Assembly and brought into force on 26 January 1950.

The Preamble of the Indian Constitution48 declares India a Sovereign, Socialist,

Secular Democratic Republic49 and sets out the main objectives of the Constitution to
secure justice for all citizens, social, economic and political.50The Indian Constitution
envisages a democracy, which ensures freedom under the law and the dignity of the
individual. Part III of the Indian Constitution enumerates the fundamental rights, and Part
IV sets out the Directive Principles of State Policy. While the former guarantees
fundamental rights24 to the individual, the latter gives direction to the state to provide
economic and social rights to its people in specified matters;52 together, they constitute
the conscience of the Constitution.

Soon after the commencement of the Indian Constitution the question was raised
regarding the Directive Principles of State Policy before the Court in State of Madras

24
The justiciability of fundamental rights is itself guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.5348 P. M. Bakshi,
The Constitution of India: With Selective Comments (Universal Law Publishing, Delhi, 2000) p. 1. In
particular, by virtue of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution the responsibility for the enforcement of
the fundamental rights lies with the Supreme Court
v.Champakam Dorairajan25. Article 37 of the Indian Constitution specifically echoes this when
stating that the principles laid down are fundamental in the governance of the country;
while in the same breathe stating that the provisions contained in this Part IV shall not
be enforced by any court. Hence, while word “fundamental” in Part III of the Indian
Constitution suggests that the “rights” are legally enforceable, the word fundamental
in the governance of the country in Part IV of the Constitution has no such effect, and the
Directive Principles of State Policy are left to the sense of the duty to those charged with the
governance of the country. Das had expressed the view that the Directive Principles of
State Policy have to conform and run subsidiary to the Part on fundamental rights. By this
decision the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights received a setback.
However, the Supreme Court in M.H. Qureshi v. State of Bihar26 propounded the doctrine
of harmonious construction, and the doctrine of integrated scheme in I.C. Golak Nath v.State
of Punjab.27 The Indian judiciary accepted the primacy of DPSP through the
25thAmendment of the Indian Constitution. Other agencies of the government, legislature
and the executive rarely advocated the subordination of the DPSP to fundamental
rights. 28

It is now well known that Article 21 has both a negative and affirmative dimension.
It is also well established now that the provisions of Parts III andIV are supplementary and
complementary to each other.Under the Indian Constitution, education is subject to
concurrent jurisdiction, with responsibility shared between the central and state
governments. The broad policies and guidelines for curricula and management practices
are laid down by the central government developed through consultation with India’s
28 states and 7 union territories. States are free to frame their own educational policies
within the broad national framework. Thus, the view that the DPSP are inferior to
fundamental rights, relying on the views of the Constitution makers and Courts, is not
correct. The Directive Principles of State Policy are now no way subordinate to the
fundamental rights, which is firmly endorsed by the Indian judiciary subsequently and
also equally recognised by the government.

25
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan,AIR 1951 SC 226
26
M.H. Qureshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731
27
I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1943
28
A. Singh, Fifty Years of Elementary Education, available at <www.un.org.in/Janshala/default.htm>,
visited on 22 December 2005
The Supreme Court of India in the Bandhua Mukti Morcha29The issue of the scope and
extent of right to education came up before the Supreme Court in Mohini Jain case
held that the right to education is implicit in and flows from the right to life guaranteed
by Article 21. That the right to education has been treated as one of transcendental
importance in the life of an individual has been recognised not only in this country since
thousands of years, but all over the world.62 case. This case addressed the charging of
capitation fees by professional colleges. The Court held that the charging of capitation fees
was illegal and held that the right to education flows directly from the right to life. The right to
life and the dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the
right to education, and the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution of India, including the right to freedom of speech and expression and other
rights under Article 19, cannot be appreciated and fully enjoyed unless a citizen is
educated and is conscious of his individual dignity.30

29
Bandhua Mukti Morcha, Union of India and Others, 3 SCC 1984.
30
Mohini Jainv. State of Karnataka, AIR 1982 SC 1858
 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION, RECCOMENDATIONS AND FURUTRE
SCOPE
The Convention against Discrimination in Education adopted in 1960 is one of the pillars of
UNESCO’s standard-setting activity in education. It is of particular interest because of the
scope and importance of the field concerned and the existence of a monitoring mechanism. The
mechanism has of course been beset by a number of operational problems, but they may be
explained by the technical obstacles encountered by many States in gathering the information
that they have been asked to provide. Putting UNESCO’s standard-setting activity since 1960
into perspective, two significant points come to light: firstly, the limitations of the Convention
and, secondly, its enduring validity. As the French* title of the Convention clearly indicates, it
concerns education in the narrower, formal sense (enseignement) only. Now while formal
education issues have of course continued to be of concern to UNESCO,206 the outlook has
broadened to encompass lifelong education for all.31 Education, or schooling, in the strict sense,
is therefore no more than one aspect among others of the overall education that each person
should receive and acquired. 32

The Convention nonetheless remains fully relevant and topical. Schooling is a vital stage and
the fundamental building-block in a person’s education.33 Furthermore, as the goals and
objectives of the Convention have unfortunately not yet been fully attained,208 the
obligations enshrined therein must be constantly brought to mind to ensure that each person
effectively has access to quality education in all countries, without any distinction whatsoever
among individuals. Only on that condition will the objective that “all the children of the world
should have the right to equal opportunity” be achieved,209 and only through the universal
provision of education free of discrimination will it be possible to make “full use of all the
talent and intelligence available as an essential contribution to continued moral and cultural
progress and economic and social advancement.

The ICESCR provides for progressive realisation and acknowledges the constraints due
to the limits of available resources. It also imposes on states parties various obligations
which are of immediate effect. States have a specific and continuing obligation “to move as
expeditiously and effectively as possible” towards the full realisati on of Article 13.

31
See, for example, Delors (J.), Learning: The Treasure Within, Report to UNESCO of the International
Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century, mentioned earlier
32
”.. See the World Education Report (2002) and the Global Education Digest 2003, mentioned earlier.209.
Piaget (J.), “The Right to Education in a Modern World” in Freedom and Culture, quoted by Daudet (Y.) and
Singh (K.), The Right to Education: An Analysis of UNESCO’s Standard-setting Instruments, op. cit., p. 9.210.
33
Recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers (1966); see Internet site: www.UNESCO.org.
States parties must closely monitor education including all relevant policies, institutions,
programmes, spending patterns and other practices so as to identify and take measures to
redress any de facto discrimination. Education operates as a multiplier, enhancing the
enjoyment of all individual rights and freedoms where the right to education is effectively
guaranteed, while depriving people of the enjoyment of many rights and freedoms where the
right to education is denied or violated.In the last 60 years the government of India has evolved
very successful programmes in imparting primary education in the country. Primary education
is now provided in the mother tongue or regional language in all the states and union territories
(UTs). There has been substantial increase in access to elementary education, with reduced
class, caste and sectional disparities. Despite substantial achievements, the task of universal
elementary education (UEE) is far from complete. Enrolments in the schools have certainly
increased but so have the number of out of school children. Sadly, the country today has one
of the largest illiterate populations in the world. Caste, gender, class and regional disparities in
UEE though reduced are still glaring and persistent. The educational administration in
most states and UTs has yet to effectively tackle endemic problems concerning shortage of
teachers, teacher absenteeism, inadequate and improperly designed school buildings, lack
of teaching/learning equipment, need-based teacher training, and a curriculum related to
real life requirements. A traditional style of administration and the tendency for
centralisation is impeding genuine people’s participation and effective partnership
with non-governmental organisations. Lack of transparency and rigid procedures have not
facilitated confidence building measures necessary for the empowerment of women and the
poor.

RECCOMENDATIONS

The Convention has thus far been ratified by only 91 Memb e r St at e s of U N ESCO. Much
work remains to be done to continue the process of ratifi cation. Both the General Conference
and the Executive Board of UNESCO have expressed the concern to raise awareness of
the Convention and to encourage universal acces-sion to this instrument. Paragraph 1 of Article
16 of the Rules of Procedure con-cerning recommendations to Member States and
international conventions, as amended at the 32nd session of the General Conference in
October 2003, reminds the Member States of their obligation to submit the convention in
question to their competent national authorities in accordance with Article IV, paragraph
4 of the Constitution. Paragraph 2 of the aforementioned Article 16 states that “The Member
States shall make the text of any convention or recommendation known to the bodies, target
groups and other entities interested in matters dealt with therein”. Recent discussions in the
Executive Board highlighted the need to promote normative action in accordance with the
international legal obligations of the States Parties to the Convention, in order for the
fundamental principles stated therein to be incorporated into their national legal systems.the
right to education is part and parcel of the right to life, and is therefore one of the
fundamental rights. India constitutes a good example in that legal rulings formulated by the
Supreme Court fully support the fundamental principles of non-discrimination and equal
opportunities in education as enshrined in the UNESCO Constitution and in the Convention.

In the case of M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (1996) 6 SCC 756 , the Supreme
Court ruled that Article 24 of the Indian Constitution requires the State to try to provide free
and compulsory education for children. Although this Member State has still not ratifi
ed the Convention, several of the Court’s rulings illustrate the protection of the rights
guaranteed by the Convention and their enforceability. India’s position and approach at
the national level to implementing international legal obliga-tions regarding the right to
education deserves to be highlighted as a way of promoting normative action. Furthermore,
Indian case law on affi rmative action and positive meas-ures goes well beyond the provisions
of the Convention. India’s legal framework and its case law on the right to education give
substance to the provisions of the Convention, and are exemplary of the measures that
Member States should take to implement the Convention. A ruling of the Indian Supreme
Court (J.P. Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P.) has given the State’s duty to provide free and
compulsory education to children (Article 24) the status of a fundamental right and in fact
a new article (Article 21A) has been added to the Constitution recognizing the right of
children aged 6-14 to free and compulsory education.

Therefore now being widely disseminated, so as to extend the influence of its principles and
norms, and encourage widespread accession. Measures aimed at raising awareness of the
Convention, notably by translating it into national and local languages, deserve encouragement
and support .UNESCO has taken a series of measures to strengthen its action against
dis-crimination in education. These initiatives have placed significant emphasis on the
development of partnerships with professional bodies and the intellectual community.
Their goal is to infl uence public opinion and to increase awareness of the fundamental
principles of non-discrimination and equal opportunities in education. These principles occupy
a pre-eminent place in the public debate on the right to education that has been initiated in
order that the importance of normative action to promote the application of the right to
education should be widely recognized.9 Moreover, the text of the Convention has been widely
publicized so as to make the legal obligations of Member States better known, and to promote
the right to education.It is essential to raise the awareness of the Member States of UNESCO
on the scope of this instrument and the provisions that it contains.10 The governments must
take all of the necessary measures to accede to it, and must stress the importance of
action at the national level to create equal opportunities for all in education, and to ensure that
education is accessible to all without discrimina-tion or exclusion.All the measures undertaken
should be mainly aimed at those who are excluded and should seek to bring education within
the reach of poor and marginalized groups who still suffer deprivation in our contemporary
knowledge society.

FUTURE SCOPE

The adoption of the Education 2030 Agenda has encouraged countries to adopt a
comprehensive and holistic approach, beyond the quantitative measure of access to education.
In that respect, many countries report the adoption of a lifelong learning approach to education,
and to the right to education in particular. Investment in the ‘early years’ and early childhood
care and education is cited by several States across the globe. For example, Ecuador’s reflection
on the best way to establish a system of continuing education for youth and adults who have
not completed their education is timely. Other countries have developed bridges between
vocational education and higher education to encourage access to university. Recognition of
prior learning and the establishment of alternative paths will be crucial to ensuring lifelong
learning opportunities for all. In order to adopt a comprehensive, holistic approach, investment
must be provided. In addition, quality–a key feature of the Education 2030 Agenda –is a central
concern for the reporting countries, and is a core component of the right to education. It is also
an issue that encompasses many challenges.

To ensure the highest levels of quality in education, adequate funding is vital. States should be
encouraged to review the resources they allocate to education and to guarantee sustainable
financial resources for the implementation of the right to education. Ensuring equality of
opportunities and inclusion in education are key levers for reducing the different kinds of
inequalities that exist throughout society. However, a common feature of the reports is that
factors such as social background, poverty, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity and
geographical location still create social and cultural barriers that are a challenge to delivering
inclusion and equality of opportunities. Education 2030 requires all girls and boys to be able
to complete free, equitable and quality basic education, leading to effective learning outcomes
and ensuring equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable
by 2030. Ensuring adequate legal protection under the right to education is the first stepin this
direction. Multiple forms of inequality and discrimination also need to be addressed via various
comprehensive policies. In this sense, the national strategies such as those for Roma integration
are –when implemented properly –a good example andshould be extended to tackle other forms
of discrimination. Generally speaking, solid mechanisms to promote the enforcement of the
right to education, combined with adequate resources and effective collaboration with various
stakeholders, are also necessary to address the issues. The reporting countries often pointed out
a lack of information on the right to education, and many of them have taken active steps to
foster awareness-raising. A very positive step, taken by the Islamic Republic of Iran, Latvia
and Mongolia, is the decision to translate the Convention against Discrimination in Education
into the national language and to disseminate it widely. The publication of key international or
national human rights documentation is also a very positive step forward. To increase public
awareness throughout their territory, a number of countries have attempted to explain the
content of the Convention or the core principles of the right to education by publishing
booklets, leaflets and guidelines, and running workshops. These initiatives could be adopted
by other countries and applied on a more systematic basis. Many country reports highlighted
the important role played by the National Commission for UNESCO in terms of advocacy,
awareness-raising and debate. National commissions often have a key role in promoting
UNESCO’s mandate and activities, and many of them have played an active role in relation to
the right to education. Equal emphasis was given by various

Various States reported that they have invested in research and described how an improved
data collection system could be used to assess the situation and to inform programming and
policy-making decisions. It is indeed crucial to establish robust systems to collect, record and
analyse data and to use evidence to supportlaw and policy-making. Brazil has designed a ‘Basic
Education Development Index’ to facilitate diagnosis of the education system and to help drive
change. States, municipalities and schools need to work together to improve their ratings and
to achieve national targets. If combined with a policy of accountability in the education system,
such monitoring systems could make a significant contribution to improving the quality of
education. To appreciate the different needs of learners, it is essential to ensure that the data is
disaggregated. In-depth research into the shortcomings of the education system is also an area
that deserves particular attention. A good example comes from Egypt, where the Center on
National Education and Development has carried out research to identify the reasons for
education failure and dropouts
In a bid to improve coordination, some countries have established working groups and
partnerships with relevant stakeholders. Involving parents is also a key factor to ensure that
their challenges and concerns are taken into consideration and adequately addressed. Inter-
ministerial work and strengthened coordination between national and local authorities can
prove decisive infostering the implementation of laws, policies and programmes and in
promoting good practice. Since information-sharing is often an obvious weakness, many States
have adopted this approach to education. In this regard, Ireland has provided a new guide
forschool self-evaluation, in order to encourage learning from good practice. The guide aims
to foster a commitment to inclusion, equality of opportunity and the holistic development of
each student. Fostering synergies and building on good examples is key to ensuring the right
to education translates into a concrete reality for all.

Making full use of UNESCO’s Observatory on the Right to Education Member States could
make greater use of UNESCO’s Observatory on the Right to Education to assist in
implementing the right to education and the 1960 Convention and Recommendation. As a
practical tool for monitoring, research and advocacy, the Observatory provides country-
specific information relating to the right to education under constitutional, legislative and
policy frameworks. It covers all dimensions of education: pre-primary, primary, secondary,
higher education, TVET, adult and non-formal education, literacy, inclusion and gender
equality, teachers, financing framework, etc. Given its considerable potential in the context of
SDG 4 -Education 2030 Agenda, UNESCO’s Observatoryon the Right to Education also serves
as a tool for implementing UNESCO’s Strategy on education-related standard-setting
instruments (adopted by the Executive Board in October 2015).Countries could be invited to
make greater use of it as a platform for information and experience-sharing and international
and regional cooperation, and to provide additional information on the implementation status
of the right to education.
 CHAPTER 5 BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. TEXTS, DOCUMENTS, OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS
Document of the United Nations Economic and Social CouncilResolution 443 (XIV) of 26
June 1952

Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities

E/CN.4/Sub.2/181/Rev.1 : Study of Discrimination in Education by Charles D. Ammoun,
Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities.
E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.111 : Resolutions on the study of discrimination in education (see Annex
to document 47 EX/7)

II. UNESCO DOCUMENTS

1. Standard-setting instrumentsConvention against Discrimination in Education,

see Internet site: www.UNESCO.org

2. Protocol instituting a Conciliation and Good Offices Commission to be Responsible

for Seeking the Settlement of any Disputes which may Arise between States Parties
to the Convention against Discrimination in Education (text adopted at the twenty-
ninth plenary meeting, 10 December 1962)

3. World Declaration on Education for All (Jomtien, 9 March 1990), see Internet site:
www.UNESCO.orgb).

4. General Conference documents10 C/23 : Report by the Director-General on

the advisability of preparing one or more international instruments designed to
eliminate or prevent discrimination in the field of education

5. 10 C/Resolution 1.34 :Resolution in which the General Conference decided that

UNESCO would draw up recommendations to Member
II. WORKS, ARTICLES AND CONTRIBUTIONS
1. Bastid (S.), “Une nouvelle commission de conciliation”, pp. 1-12 in Mélanges offerts à
Henri Rolin, Paris, Pedone, 1964, lxx-536 p
2. Blat Gimeno (J.), “La influenca de la UNESCO en las politicas educativas nacionales”,
pp. 1183-1196 in Federico Mayor, Amicorum Liber: solidarité, égalité, liberté, Vol. II,
Brussels, Bruylant, 1995, xlix-1379 p.

3. Konishi (M.), Convention concernant la lutte contre la discrimination dans le

domaine de l’enseignement (contribution de l’UNESCO à la protection des droits de
l’homme). Compte rendu présent é au Centre d’études et de recherches de droit
international et de relations internationales à l’Académie de droit international,
Peace Palace, The Hague, at the session held from 15 August to 22 September 1967,
56 p.

4. Mertens (P.), “L’application de la Convention et de la Recommandation de

l’U.N.E.S.C.O. concernant la lutte contre la discrimination dans le domaine de
l’enseignement: un bilan provisoire”, in Revue de droit international et comparé, 1968,
Vol. I-1, pp. 91-108.

5. Modeen (T.), “La convention de l’UNESCO concernant la lutte contre la discrimination

dans le domaine de l’enseignement et les îles d’Aland”, in Revue des droits de
l’homme, 1977, Vol. 10, pp. 249-270 (especially pp. 249-258).

6. Nartowski (A.S.), “The UNESCO System of Protection of the Right to Education (As
an Example of the Most Rational Model of the Protection of Human Rights by an
International Organization)”, inPolish Yearbook of International Law, 1974, No. 6, pp.
289-309.

7. Rousseau (Ch.), Droit international public, tome 1: Introduction et Sources, Paris,

Sirey, 1970.Saba (H.), “La Convention et la Recommandation concernant la lutte
contre la discrimination dans le domaine de l’enseignement”, in AFDI, 1960, pp. 646-
652.

8. Saba (H.), “L’activité quasi législative des institutions spécialisées des Nations Unies”,
in R.C.A.D.I., vol. 111, 1964-I, pp. 607-690 (especially pp. 642-656).

9. Saba (H.), “UNESCO and Human Rights”, pp. 479-506, in Vasak (K.) (ed.), The
International Dimensions of Human Rights, Paris, UNESCO, 1982, 2 vols.
10. Sioen (D.), L’UNESCO et le droit à l’éducation, Typewritten thesis, Paris II, 1978,iii-
233 p.

11. Valticos (N.), “Les systèmes de contrôle non judiciaire des instruments internationaux
relatifs aux droits de l’homme”, pp. 331-356 (especially pp. 348-351) in Mélanges
offerts à Polys Modinos. Problèmes des droits de l’homme et de l’unification
européenne, Paris, Pedone, 1968, xxiv-498 p.

12. Advisory opinion relating to reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1950-1951), 28 May 1951, ICJ Reports 1951

13. A. Ghosh, ‘Draft Education Bill Upsets Schools’, Times of India, 17 December 2005

14. National Policy on Education, available at http://www.education.nic.in/

III. Cases
1. Bandhua Mukti Morcha, Union of India and Others, 3 SCC 1984.
2. Mohini Jainv. State of Karnataka, AIR 1982 SC 1858
3. UnniKrishnan v. State of AP and Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2178
4. I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1943.
5. M.H. Qureshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731
6. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan,AIR 1951 SC 226.
7. Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Ors. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 1993 AIR 2178.
8. D. D. Basu, Human Rights in Constitutional Law (Prentice Hall, New Delhi, 1994).
9. Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India and Ors, Decision of 10 April 2008,
para. 50, available at <www.judis.nic.in/>, visited on 23 April 2008.