|
Nov. 29, 2006
What does it mean to have a right to an education?
What does it mean to have a right to an education? We have compulsory
education in all of our fifty states, so far as I know, but do we need
to formalize that as a right as well? Is education even something that
you can have a right to? I subscribe to a basic philosophy handed down
from John Locke which holds more to the "natural rights" of life,
liberty and property. I'm no philosopher...and I haven't even read all
that Mr. Locke has to say on the subject...but it seems to me that a
right is something that you have that cannot be taken away from you.
It is not something which is given to you by another.
What would it mean to the United States if we were to amend its
constitution to include a right to education for all children? While
looking for an old link on this general discussion, I found an interesting paragraph:
The Independent Commission on Public Education works within
a human rights framework, which guarantees that every child in New York
City has the right to education. Children have the right to quality
teachers and curricula, and to a school environment that respects the
dignity of every child. This right is not only found in our State
Constitution, it is recognized around the world in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child
and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The
United States does have a markedly different history in regards to the
definition of rights in comparison to much of the rest of the world.
Since this is largely derived from English common law, it is no
surprise that homeschooling is legal in all English speaking countries
(so far as I know). But the paragraph about the child's right to an
education in the Convention of the Rights of the Child also seems to
have been central in the Konrad decision
which sided with Germany, citing that "parents may not refuse the right
to education of a child on the basis of their convictions." The
children were not old enough to foresee the consequences of their
parents decisions, so the state had an obligation to ensure that their
right to an education was not infringed upon. Forcing them into the
public schools therefore was viewed as protecting their right to an
education.
Does a right to an education mean that the parent then does not have
the right to direct such education? On the surface, it does not appear
to be so. However, the European Court of Human Rights seems to believe
it does.
The right to education as enshrined in Article 2 of
Protocol No. 1 by its very nature calls for regulation by the
State...Therefore, Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 implies the possibility
for the State to establish compulsory schooling, be it in State schools
or private tuition of a satisfactory standard... That
obviously does not necessarily mean that decisions would fall the same
way in the United States. But I do sense that we are steadily drifting
far from the vision of our founders in regards to basic rights,
liberties and the role of the state in protecting those rights.
Two carnivals for your perusement:
The Christian carnival over at Brain Cramps for God.
The Education carnival over at A History Teacher.
I haven't had time to look through them much (ok, at all), but the titles look intriguing.
|
| •
Post A Comment! •
Send to a Friend!
|
Comments
|
|
|
|
