essay on right to free education

Human rights abuses are happening right now – start a monthly gift today.

• Videos & Photos
• Take Action

Toward Free Education for All Children

Momentum Building to Expand the Right to Millions

BedeOnKidRights

Share this via Facebook Share this via X Share this via WhatsApp Share this via Email Other ways to share Share this via LinkedIn Share this via Reddit Share this via Telegram Share this via Printer

This essay is part of a series highlighting global human rights trends in 2022. Read more  here .

Education is fundamental for children’s development and a powerful catalyst for improving their entire lives. International human rights law guarantees everyone a right to education. But it surprises many to learn that the international human rights framework only explicitly guarantees an immediate right to free primary education—even though we know that a child equipped with just a primary education is inadequately prepared to thrive in today’s world.

Children who participate in education from the pre-primary through to the secondary level have better health, better job prospects, and higher earnings as adults. And they are less vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, including child labor and child marriage.

All countries have made a political commitment through the United Nations “ Sustainable Development Goals ” to providing by 2030 both access to pre-primary education for all, and that all children complete free secondary school education. Yet the world appears on track to fail these targets , and children deserve more than yet another round of non-binding pledges.

For these reasons, Human Rights Watch believes that it’s time to take countries that made these commitments at their word, and expand the right to education under international law. It should explicitly recognize that all children should have a right to early childhood education, including at least one year of free pre-primary education, as well as a right to free secondary education.

We are not alone in this belief.

In 2019, the World Organisation for Early Childhood Education and the Latin American Campaign for the Right to Education met with experts from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child to share their research , concluding that the legally binding human rights framework failed to adequately specify that the right to education should begin in early childhood, before primary school.

In December 2021, UNESCO—the UN education organization— concluded that in light of 21st century trends and challenges, the right to education should be reframed, and that recognizing early childhood education as a legal right at the international level “would allow the international community to hold governments accountable and ensure there is adequate investment.”

In 2022, these sparks began to catch fire.

In June, various international children’s rights and human rights experts called for the expansion of the right to education under international law, to recognize every child’s right to free pre-primary education and free secondary education. In September, the Nobel Prize laureate and education champion Malala Yousafzai and the environmental youth activist Vanessa Nakate were among over a half-a-million people around the world who signed an open letter from the global civic movement Avaaz, calling on world leaders to create a new global treaty that protects children’s right to free education—from pre-primary through secondary school.

Argentina and Spain announced their commitments to support the idea at the UN’s Transforming Education summit in September. In October, the UN’s top independent education expert recommended that the right to early childhood education should be enshrined in a legally-binding human rights instrument. And the year ended on a high note with education ministers and delegations gathered at the November World Conference on Early Childhood Care and Education in Uzbekistan adopting the new “ Tashkent Declaration ,” in which they agreed to enhance legal frameworks to ensure the right to education “includes the right to at least one year of free and compulsory pre-primary quality education for all children.”

So what might happen in 2023? All concerned will turn to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva to see whether member countries will agree to start the process to begin drafting such a treaty. At least half of all countries already guarantee at least one year of free pre-primary education or free secondary education under their own domestic laws and policies. This includes low- and middle- income countries from around the world. That means that there’d be a large constituency of countries potentially willing to sign such a treaty when adopted.

Even when human rights feel under threat around the world, it’s vital for the human rights movement not to be on the defensive. Making the positive case for strengthening and advancing human rights standards has a critical role in shaping and improving the future. Guaranteeing the best conditions for children to access a quality, inclusive, free education—and thereby to develop their personalities, talents, mental and physical abilities, and prepare them for a responsible life in a free society—is the kind of positive human rights agenda that all countries should rally around in 2023.

Your tax deductible gift can help stop human rights violations and save lives around the world.

• Children's Rights

More Reading

All children have a right to pre-primary education.

Across Africa, Many Young Mothers Face Education Barriers

“How Dare They Peep into My Private Life?”

Children’s Rights Violations by Governments that Endorsed Online Learning During the Covid-19 Pandemic

“Years Don’t Wait for Them”

Increased Inequalities in Children’s Right to Education Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic

Most Viewed

Gaza: israel’s imposed starvation deadly for children.

Thailand: Court Ruling Could Subvert Democratic Rule

US: Louisiana’s ‘Cancer Alley’

India’s General Elections, Technology, and Human Rights Questions and Answers

Q&A: Access to Abortion is a Human Right

Protecting Rights, Saving Lives

Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people in close to 100 countries worldwide, spotlighting abuses and bringing perpetrators to justice

Get updates on human rights issues from around the globe. Join our movement today.

Every weekday, get the world’s top human rights news, explored and explained by Andrew Stroehlein.

The right to education

Education is a basic human right that works to raise men and women out of poverty, level inequalities and ensure sustainable development. But worldwide 244 million children and youth are still out of school for social, economic and cultural reasons. Education is one of the most powerful tools in lifting excluded children and adults out of poverty and is a stepping stone to other fundamental human rights. It is the most sustainable investment. The right to quality education is already firmly rooted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international legal instruments, the majority of which are the result of the work of UNESCO and the United Nations.    

• What you need to know about the right to education
• Q&A with the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to education

Understanding the right to education

Enforcing the right to education.

Developing norms and standards

in reviewing and developing education legal and policy frameworks

Responding to challenges

The start of a global conversation

Say no to discrimination in education! - #RightToEducation campaign

Monitoring tools.

For any information, please contact:  [email protected]   

Monitoring SDG 4: access to education

Resources from UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring Report.

5 Must-Read Essays on the Right to Education

When the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Article 26 asserted that all people have the right to education. That right appears in other documents such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and in treaties about women and girls, refugees, migrants, and others. Many constitutions around the world also list education as a right. However, the right to education isn’t always upheld. To understand more about education as a human right, and where and why it’s often not a reality, here are five must-read essays:

“ Girls Can Change The World – But We Have To Invest In Them First ” – Malala Yousafzai

Writing for Time Magazine in 2018, Malala Yousafzai’s essay details the importance of educating girls. It’s short, but like all of Malala’s writing, it’s impactful. She opens with the sobering statistic that 130 million girls are not in school. Despite promises at the United Nations to guarantee that every girl will get 12 years of education by 2030, donor countries either halted or decreased their giving for education. Malala expresses her discouragement, but remains hopeful, drawing attention to the Malala Fund and impact of local activists and educators.

The youngest Nobel Prize laureate, Malala is a Pakistani human rights activist, with a special focus on female education. In 2012, the Taliban attempted to assassinate her since she was already a well-known activist, but she survived. The attack and recovery made her a household name, and she won the Nobel Prize two years later. She is a writer and current student at Oxford University.

“ Is Education a Fundamental Right? ” – Jill Lepore

A relatively-unknown Supreme Court Case from 1982, Plyler v. Doe addressed questions about education, immigration, and if schooling is a human right. In her essay, Jill Lepore writes that this case could become much better known as various lawsuits filed on behalf of immigrant children enter the court system. These are the children who are separated from their parents at the border and deprived of education.  Using Plyler v. Doe as a guide along with the other cases both past and present, Lepore explores the issue of education as a fundamental right in the United States.

This essay appeared in the print edition of The New Yorker in September 2018 under the headline “Back to the Blackboard.” Jill Lepore is a professor of history at Harvard University and a staff writer for the New Yorker. Publications include the book These Truths: A History of the United States and This America: The Case for the Nation.

“ How to Improve Access to Education Around the World ” – Jan Lee

In this piece on the Triple Pundit platform, Lee takes a look at how Pearson, an education publishing and assessment service company based in the UK, is making an impact on education access around the world. In the United States, Pearson works on finding solutions for the social and economic problems that lead to low high-school graduation rates. Pearson also invests in low-cost private education around the world. The essay highlights how access to education can be improved through new educational technology for students with disabilities and outreach to underserved communities. Since this article was sponsored by Pearson, it doesn’t look at what other companies or organizations are doing, but it provides a good model for the kinds of actions that can help.

Jan Lee is an award-winning editorial writer and former news editor, whose work can be found Triple Pundit, JustMeans, and her blog The Multicultural Jew. On Triple Pundit, she’s written stories on a variety of topics, such as Leadership & Transparency, Data & Technology, and Energy & Environment.

“ Higher Education Is A Human Right ” – Heidi Gilchrist

It’s established that primary education is a human right, but what about higher education? In her essay, Heidi Gilchrist argues that it is. Looking specifically at the United States, her reason is that in order to access the American dream- which she calls the “ideal it [the country] was founded on” – people need higher education. As global society starts to depend more on technology and other complex systems, more and more jobs will require advanced degrees. In order to truly succeed and achieve their dreams, people will need higher education. Gilchrist offers another perspective on the issue, as well, writing that countries need people with advanced degrees to protect national security. Having higher education remain a luxury means only the wealthy can access it, and that harms a society in every regard.

Heidi Gilchrist is a Lecturer-in-Law at Columbia Law School and an Assistant Professor of Legal Writing at Brooklyn Law. In her previous career, she served as a national security analyst in the federal government, and as a laison to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York City. She writes on national security and how it converges with human rights law and civil rights.

“ Public schools for private gain: The declining American commitment to serving the public good ” – David F. Larabee

In an essay that is both a history lesson and critical look at the pursuit of education as a “private benefit,” Larabee argues that this new view of schooling is dangerous. While in the past, school had been seen as a community where students of all backgrounds and finances mingle and receive opportunities, it’s morphing into just another capitalist arena. Wealthy parents are choosing private schools and focusing their resources there, while public schools and students struggle. School is becoming “a means of private advancement,” Larabee says, instead of a source of public good. This has serious long-term consequences.

David Larabee is a Lee L. Jacks Professor of Education, emeritus, at the Standard University Graduate School of Education. He describes himself as a “sociologically oriented historian of education.” He is also an author, most recently of 2017’s A Perfect Mess: The Unlikely Ascendancy of American Higher Education.

You may also like

The UN Young Leaders Online Training Programme is Open for Applications!

Apply now: Essex Human Rights Summer School (Fully Online)

17 International Organizations Offering Early-Career Opportunities

Gender Rights Jobs: Our Short Guide

Free MOOC on Children’s Right to Education in Armed Conflict

9 Online Courses on Leading Diverse Teams

40 Top-Rated Social Issues Courses to Study in 2024

10 Courses to Prepare for Your Human Rights Job

Register now: Global Institute of Human Rights Certificate Program

The UN Immersion Programme Is Open for Applications!

NGO Jobs: Our Short Guide

Apply now: UN Post Graduate Diploma in Global Health Procurement and Supply Chain Management

About the author, human rights careers.

Human Rights Careers (HRC) provides information about online courses, jobs, paid internships, masters degrees, scholarships and other opportunities in the human rights sector and related areas.

Your Right to Equality in Education

Getting an education isn’t just about books and grades – we’re also learning how to participate fully in the life of this nation. (We’re tomorrow’s leaders after all!)

But in order to really participate, we need to know our rights – otherwise we may lose them. The highest law in our land is the U.S. Constitution, which has some amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government can never deprive people in the U.S. of certain fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion and to free speech and the due process of law. Many federal and state laws give us additional rights, too.

The Bill of Rights applies to young people as well as adults. And what I’m going to do right here is tell you about EQUAL TREATMENT .

DO ALL KIDS HAVE THE RIGHT TO AN EQUAL EDUCATION?

Yes! All kids living in the United States have the right to a free public education. And the Constitution requires that all kids be given equal educational opportunity no matter what their race, ethnic background, religion, or sex, or whether they are rich or poor, citizen or non-citizen. Even if you are in this country illegally, you have the right to go to public school. The ACLU is fighting hard to make sure this right isn’t taken away.

In addition to this constitutional guarantee of an equal education, many federal, state and local laws also protect students against discrimination in education based on sexual orientation or disability, including pregnancy and HIV status.

In fact, even though some kids may complain about having to go to school, the right to an equal educational opportunity is one of the most valuable rights you have. The Supreme Court said this in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case when it struck down race segregation in the public schools.

If you believe you or someone you know is being discriminated against in school, speak up! Talk to a teacher, the principal, the head of a community organization or a lawyer so they can investigate the situation and help you take legal action if necessary.

ARE TRACKING SYSTEMS LEGAL?

Yes, as long as they really do separate students on the basis of learning ability and as long as they give students the same basic education.

Many studies show, however, that the standards and tests school officials use in deciding on track placements are often based on racial and class prejudices and stereotypes instead of on real ability and learning potential. That means it’s often the white, middle-class kids who end up in the college prep classes, while poor and non-white students, and kids whose first language isn’t English, end up on “slow” tracks and in vocational-training classes. And often, the lower the track you’re on, the less you’re expected to learn – and the less you’re taught.

Even if you have low grades or nobody in your family ever went to college, if you want to go to college, you should demand the type of education you need to realize your dreams. And your guidance counselor should help you get it! Your local ACLU can tell you the details of how to go about challenging your track placement.

CAN STUDENTS BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY IN PUBLIC SCHOOL BASED ON THEIR SEX?

Almost never. Public schools may not have academic courses that are just for boys – like shop – or just for girls – like home economics. Both the Constitution and federal law require that boys and girls also be provided with equal athletic opportunities. Many courts have held, however, that separate teams for boys and girls are allowed as long as the school provides students of both sexes the chance to participate in the particular sport. Some courts have also held that boys and girls may always be separated in contact sports. The law is different in different states; you can call your local ACLU affiliate for information.

CAN GIRLS BE KICKED OUT OF SCHOOL IF THEY GET PREGNANT?

No. Federal law prohibits schools from discriminating against pregnant students or students who are married or have children. So, if you are pregnant, school officials can’t keep you from attending classes, graduation ceremonies, extracurricular activities or any other school activity except maybe a strenuous sport. Some schools have special classes for pregnant girls, but they cannot make you attend these if you would prefer to be in your regular classes.

CAN SCHOOLS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST GAY STUDENTS?

School officials shouldn’t be able to violate your rights just because they don’t like your sexual orientation. However, even though a few states and cities have passed laws against sexual orientation discrimination, public high schools have been slow to establish their own anti-bias codes – and they’re slow to respond to incidents of harassment and discrimination. So while in theory, you can take a same-sex date to the prom, join or help form a gay group at school or write an article about lesbian/gay issues for the school paper, in practice gay students often have to fight hard to have their rights respected.

WHAT ABOUT STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES?

Although students with disabilities may not be capable of having exactly the same educational experiences as other students, federal law requires that they be provided with an education that is appropriate for them. What is an appropriate education must be worked out individually for each student. For example, a deaf student might be entitled to be provided with a sign language interpreter.

In addition to requiring that schools identify students with disabilities so that they can receive the special education they need in order to learn, federal law also provides procedures to make sure that students are not placed in special education classes when they are not disabled. If you believe you’re not receiving an appropriate education, either because you are not in special classes when you need to be, or because you are in special classes when you don’t need to be, call the ACLU!

And thanks to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), students who are HIV positive have the same rights as every other student. People with HIV are protected against discrimination , not only in school but in many other public places such as stores, museums and hotels.

People with HIV aren’t a threat to anyone else’s health, because the AIDS virus can’t be spread through casual contact. That’s just a medical fact. Your local ACLU can provide information on how to fight discrimination against people with HIV.

CAN I GO TO PUBLIC SCHOOL IF I DON’T SPEAK ENGLISH?

Yes. It is the job of the public schools to teach you to speak English and to provide you with a good education in other subjects while you are learning. Students who do not speak English have the right to require the school district to provide them with bilingual education or English language instruction or both.

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” –Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972

We spend a big part of our life in school, and our voices count. Join the student government! Attend school meetings! Petition your school administration! Talk about your rights with your friends! Let’s make a difference!

Produced by the ACLU Department of Public Education. 125 Broad Street, NY NY 10004. For more copies of this or any other Sybil Liberty paper, or to order the ACLU handbook The Rights of Students or other student-related publications, call 800-775-ACLU or visit us on the internet at https://www.aclu.org .

Related Issues

• Racial Justice
• Mass Incarceration
• Smart Justice
• Women's Rights

Stay Informed

Every month, you'll receive regular roundups of the most important civil rights and civil liberties developments. Remember: a well-informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.

By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.

The right to education

Introducing articles 28 and 29.

Home > The Rights Respecting Schools Award > The Right to Education

The Right to an Education is one of the most important principles in becoming a Rights Respecting School.

Education is a key social and cultural right and plays an important role in reducing poverty and child labour. Furthermore, education promotes democracy, peace, tolerance, development and economic growth. There are a number of articles in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child  that focus on a child’s right to education.

Articles 28 and 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Articles 28 and 29 focus on a child’s right to an education and on the quality and content of education.  Article 28 says that “State Parties recognise the right of children to education” and “should take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity.” Article 29 focuses on the aims of education and says that governments agree that “the education of the child shall be directed to:

• The development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential.
• The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
• The development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate and for civilisations different from his or her own.
• The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin.
• The development of respect for the natural environment.

The 1990 World Declaration on Education for All  described education as consisting of essential learning tools such as literacy, numeracy and problem solving combined with knowledge, skills, values and attitudes required by human beings to survive, develop potential, to improve the quality of their lives, to make informed decisions and to continue learning.

General Comment on the aims of education

In 2001, the  Committee on the Rights of the Child , the body of experts that monitors the implementation of the Convention, published a paper (called a General Comment) that explained and elaborated on the right to education.

The General Comment 1 on the aims of education provides a very clear overview of what the right to education means in practice. It said that:

• Education must be child-centred and empowering. This applies to the curriculum as well as the educational processes, the pedagogical methods and the environment where education takes place.
• Education must be provided in a way that respects the inherent dignity of the child and enables the child to express his or her views in accordance with article 12 (1) and to participate in school life.
• Education must respect the strict limits on discipline reflected in article 28 and promote non-violence in school.
• Education must include not only literacy and numeracy but also life skills such as the ability to make well-balanced decisions; to resolve conflicts in a non‑violent manner; and to develop a healthy lifestyle, good social relationships and responsibility, critical thinking, creative talents, and other abilities which give children the tools needed to pursue their options in life.

It’s important to remember that the  Convention must be seen as a whole  and so articles 28 and 29 should not be looked at or considered in isolation. Particular regard should be paid to the General Principles and other closely related articles for example: article 16 : protection of privacy, article 24 health (including health education), article 31 rest, leisure, play, recreation and culture.

Steps to the award

Getting Started

About the award

Introducing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

RSS feed Facebook Twitter   Donate Share -->

• News & blog
• Monitoring guide
• Education as a right
• United Nations
• Humanitarian Law
• International Human Rights Mechanisms
• Inter-American
• Regional Human Rights Mechanisms
• What information to look at
• Where to find information
• Comparative Table on Minimum Age Legislation
• Adult education & learning
• Education 2030
• Education Financing
• Education in Emergencies
• Educational Freedoms
• Early Childhood Care and Education

Free Education

• Higher education
• Technology in education
• Justiciability
• Marginalised Groups
• Minimum Age
• Privatisation of Education
• Quality Education
• News and blog

You are here

Un_523257_classrom_timor.jpg.

According to international human rights law, primary education shall be compulsory and free of charge. Secondary and higher education shall be made progressively free of charge.

Free primary education is fundamental in guaranteeing everyone has access to education. However, in many developing countries, families often cannot afford to send their children to school, leaving millions of children of school-age deprived of education. Despite international obligations, some states keep on imposing fees to access primary education. In addition, there are often indirect costs associated with education, such as for school books, uniform or travel, that prevent children from low-income families accessing school.

Financial difficulties states may face cannot relieve them of their obligation to guarantee free primary education. If a state is unable to secure compulsory primary education, free of charge, when it ratifies the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1966), it still has the immediate obligation, within two years, to work out and adopt a detailed plan of action for its progressive implementation, within a reasonable numbers of years, to be fixed in the plan (ICESCR, Article 14). For more information, see General Comment 11  (1999) of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

'Progressive introduction of free education' means that while states must prioritise the provision of free primary education, they also have an obligation to take concrete steps towards achieving free secondary and higher education ( General Comment 13 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1999: Para. 14).

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948, Article 26)
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966, Articles 13 and 14)
• Convention on the Rights of the Child  (1982, Article 28)
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women  (1979, Article 10)
• Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006, Article 24)
• UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education  (1960, Articles 4)
• ILO Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention (1999, Preamble, Articles 7 and 8)
• African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (1990, Article 11)
• African Youth Charter (2006, Articles 13 and 16)
• Charter of the Organisation of American States (1967, Article 49)
• Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights, Protocol of San Salvador (1988, Article 13)
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union  (2000, Article 14)
• European Social Charter  (revised) (1996, Articles 10 and 17)
• Arab Charter on Human Rights  (2004, Article 41)
• ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (2012, Article 31)

For more details, see International Instruments - Free and Compulsory Education

The following case-law on free education includes decisions of national, regional and international courts as well as decisions from national administrative bodies, national human rights institutions and international human rights bodies.

Claim of unconstitutionality against article 183 of the General Education Law (Colombia Constitutional Court; 2010)

Other issues.

The UNESCO Courier

Education: the essential foundation for human rights

Isaac Leon Kandel

A study of recent statements on human rights reveals the curious paradox that the one condition which is essential to their realization and proper use is hardly ever mentioned. Perhaps the omission of any reference to education can be explained on the assumption that it is taken for granted as a human right and as the essential foundation for the enjoyment of human rights.

The history of education, however, provides ample evidence that education has not been regarded as a human right nor has it been used as an instrument for developing an appreciation of the importance of human rights for the fullest development of each individual as a human being. Historically two motives have dominated the provision of education. The first and the earliest motive was directed to indoctrinating the younger generation in the religious beliefs of their particular denominations. The second motive, which came with the use of the national state, was to develop a sense of loyalty to the political group or nation. In both cases, the ends that were sought emphasized acquiescent discipline rather than education for freedom as a human being. […]

Because education has not yet been recognized universally as a human right, it is essential that it be included in any declaration of human rights that may be drawn up. The right to education needs greater emphasis than it is given in the Memorandum on Human Rights , prepared by UNESCO [27 March 1947].

Two-tier education

One of the tragic results of the traditional organization of education into two systems – one for the masses and the other for a select group – is that, even when equality of educational opportunity is provided, certain social and economic classes feel that the opportunities are not intended for them. The provision of equality of educational opportunity demands in some countries, measures to change the psychological attitudes produced by the traditional organization.

Thus Henri Laugier, in discussing plans for the reconstruction of education in France, wrote [in the Educational Yearbook of the International Institute, Teachers College, Columbia University, p. 136 f, New York, 1944]: “So many generations in France have lived in an atmosphere of theoretical equality and actual inequality that the situation has in practice met with fairly general acceptance, induced by the normally pleasant conditions of French life. Of course, the immediate victims of the inequality are barely conscious of it or do not suffer from it in any way. It does not occur to the son of a worker or an agricultural labourer that he might become the governor of a colony, director in a ministry, an ambassador, an admiral, or an inspector of finance. He may know that such positions exist, but for him they exist in a higher world which is not open to him. Most frequently this situation neither inspires nor embitters him, nor does it arouse in him a desire to claim a right or to demand a definite change!” […]

The recognition of education as a human right is, however, only one aspect of the problem as it concerns the Rights of Man. Free access to education at all levels may be provided without affecting either the content or the methods of instruction. Traditionally, the quality of elementary education differed from the quality of secondary education; the former was directed to imparting a certain quantum of knowledge, most generally to be acquired by rote and resulting in what the French call  l’esprit primaire ; the latter was intended to import a liberal or general cultural education. In neither case was there, except by indirection, any deep-rooted training for the use and enjoyment of those freedoms which are included in the list of Human Rights. The emphasis, particularly, since most types of education were dominated by exigencies of examinations, was rather on the acceptance of the authority – either of the printed word or of the teacher.

Freedom is not license

When the pendulum began to shift from an emphasis on discipline, indoctrination, and authoritarianism to an emphasis on freedom, it was too often forgotten that freedom is a conquest and that education for freedom of any kind demands a type of discipline in learning to appreciate the moral consequences of one’s actions. Education for freedom does not mean, as it has frequently been thought to mean, a laissez-faire programme of content or of methods of instruction, but the intelligent recognition of responsibility and duty.

If this principle is sound, it also means a change in the status of the teacher and of teaching. If the teacher is to be more than a purveyor of knowledge to be tested by examinations, then the traditional limitations placed upon him by courses of study prescribed in detail, by prescribed methods of instruction, and by control through inspection and examinations must be replaced by a different concept of the preparation that is desirable for the teacher. That preparation must be raised to the same level as preparation for any other liberal profession. If the efforts of the teacher are to be directed to the development of free personalities and to education for freedom of speech, expression, communication, information and inquiry, the teacher through his preparation should become professionally free and recognize that freedom without a sense of responsibility easily degenerates into license.

Before the Rights of Man can be incorporated into programmes of education, another change is essential. In the past, education has been used as an instrument of nationalistic policy, which too frequently meant indoctrination in either national or racial separatism and superiority. And even where the humanities formed the core of the curriculum, so much attention was devoted to the scaffolding that the essential meaning of humanism was lost. The common goals inherent in the ideal of the Rights of Man can only be attained as programmes of education and instruction are based on the realization that there is no national culture which does not owe far more than is usually admitted to the influence of the cultural heritage of man of all races and of all ages. It is upon this foundation that the freedoms included in the Rights of Man can be laid; it is only in this way that the true concept of humanism as an end in education can be developed. Their attainment, finally, depends upon training in the methods of free inquiry. Education for the various freedoms demands discipline. To paraphrase Rousseau, man must be disciplined to enjoy the freedoms which are his rights.

Isaac L. Kandel

A pioneer in the field of comparative education, the American educator Isaac L. Kandel (1881-1965) conducted extensive studies of education systems around the world. Born in Romania, of British parents, he was the author of more than forty books and over three hundred articles, the editor of several academic journals, and taught at his  almae matres , the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom and Columbia University in the United States.

In the same issue

Related items

• Future of education
• Sharing knowledge
• Human rights: Back to the Future
• Topics: 2018_4
• Topics: Wide Angle
• See more add

More on this subject

Other recent articles

877-757-8189

Student Login

The 14th Amendment Protects the Right to a Public Education

Over the years, the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution has had an enormous impact on protecting individual rights in public elementary and secondary education. This has occurred through the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the incorporation of other rights (like freedom of speech) to the states through the 14th Amendment.

Equal Protection Clause

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment provides that a state may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It applies to public elementary and secondary schools, as they are considered to be state actors. In 1954, the Supreme Court interpreted the Equal Protection Clause’s requirements in  Brown v. Board of Education . In perhaps one of the most famous and important cases issued by the Court, it stated:

We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs…are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

That language, and the Court’s decision, had a dramatic impact on public education. Schools were required to end the discriminatory practice of segregating students based on race. While segregation was more prevalent in some states than in others, all public schools in all states that had segregated students needed to desegregate, or face claims that they were in violation of the 14th Amendment. What followed was roughly 50 years of desegregation efforts in public schools, and numerous court decisions regarding the constitutionality of those desegregation efforts.

Over time, the focus evolved from ending and remedying the vestiges of discriminatory practices to integration efforts that sought to promote the diversity of the student population in public schools. In some instances, these integration efforts were voluntary, meaning they were done by schools that had not segregated students in the past. These integration efforts continue to this day, and the predominant legal issues revolve around the extent to which race can be used as a factor in the assignment of students to certain schools in order to diversify the student body.

The language, and the logic, of the  Brown v. Board  decision also found its way into other types of Equal Protection claims. For example, in the mid-1970s, students with disabilities challenged their exclusion from public school on equal protection grounds. Two very influential lower court decisions,  PARC v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania , and  Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia , relied on  Brown v. Board  and determined that students with disabilities could not be excluded from public school because of their disabilities.

Those court decisions led to a federal statute that imposed similar requirements on all public schools that accepted certain federal funds. That law turned into the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which today applies to all public schools. The law requires public schools to provide all students with disabilities with a  Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) . It also prohibits schools from expelling or suspending students with disabilities for longer than 10 days, when the student’s actions are caused by their disability.

Due Process Clause

Due process is another area of the 14th Amendment that has had a dramatic impact on individual rights in public education. The Due Process Clause says that states may not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to have substantive and procedural protections. With substantive due process, the 14th Amendment protects a parent’s right to direct the educational upbringing of their child. Because of this right, the Supreme Court ruled that a state statute that prohibited the teaching of foreign language, and a state statute that required all students to attend public schools, as opposed to private schools, violated the 14th Amendment. See  Meyer v. Nebraska  and  Pierce v. Society of Sisters . The Court also ruled that a state statute that required Amish children to attend school past the eighth grade violated the substantive due process rights, and the religious freedom rights, of Amish parents to direct the educational and religious upbringing of their children. See  Wisconsin v. Yoder .

As a result of these substantive due process protections, all states currently have exceptions in their state compulsory attendance statutes that require students of certain ages to attend school. The exceptions allow for attendance at private schools, religious schools, and homeschool to meet the compulsory attendance requirements.

The procedural due process protections of the 14th Amendment have also played an important role in public education, particularly in the areas of student discipline and teacher employment. With student discipline, the Supreme Court has ruled that students have a “legitimate entitlement to a public education as a property right.” See  Goss v. Lopez . That right may not be taken away without first providing due process protections, which are generally notice of what the student is accused of doing, and the opportunity to be heard before the student is disciplined.

The required amount of notice and opportunity to be heard increases as the severity of the discipline increases. With minor disciplinary actions, an informal discussion with the principal may be sufficient to meet the requirements. For more severe discipline, such as expulsion, a more detailed hearing is generally required to give the student a chance to present evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses. As a result of these constitutional due process protections, all states have enacted statutes and regulations that provide due process protections for students during the discipline process.

A similar due process right applies to tenured teachers at public elementary and secondary schools. Once a teacher receives tenured status, they have a property interest in their continued employment, and must be provided with notice and a hearing before it may be taken away from them. See  Perry v. Sindermann .

Incorporation

The third area where the 14th Amendment has impacted public schools is in the application of other constitutional rights to the states through the 14th Amendment, via a concept known as  incorporation . Perhaps the biggest impact here has been the First Amendment’s right to free speech, although other protections like freedom of religion have also made their mark on public education.

In the area of free speech, the Supreme Court has said that students and teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” See  Tinker v. Des Moines . While courts do give some deference to school administrators in making decisions about whether to prohibit certain student speech, the First Amendment requires schools to justify their decisions when they infringe on free speech rights. The level of justification required depends on the nature of the speech, and the nature of the restriction.

For example, in  Tinker v. Des Moines , students were protesting the Vietnam War by wearing armbands, and the school disciplined the students for doing so. The Supreme Court ruled that the discipline violated the First Amendment, because the school could not show that the speech could reasonably be expected to cause a substantial disruption with school activities or the rights of others. By contrast, in  Morse v. Frederick , the Supreme Court deferred to a school administrator’s judgment that a sign that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” promoted drug use, and upheld the discipline of the students that displayed the sign at a school event.

These are just a few examples of the many ways that the 14th Amendment impacts individual rights in public education. Many of these issues arise on a daily basis in public schools, and the 14th Amendment provides some constitutional protections of individual rights that schools must take into account when addressing them.

Scott F. Johnson

Scott F. Johnson is a Professor of Law at Purdue Global Law School (formerly Concord Law School), where he teaches Education Law and Special Education Law, among other topics. He has written a number of books and articles in the education law area. Professor Johnson’s law practice included education and special education cases, and he currently serves as a special education hearing officer for a state agency.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not represent the view of Purdue Global Law School.

Employment and Career Advancement:  Purdue Global Law School cannot guarantee employment or career advancement.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

© 2024, Purdue Global, a public, nonprofit institution.

• Cookie Preferences
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Essay On Right To Education

500 words essay on right to education.

Education enables individuals to put their potentials to optimal use. Moreover, it makes them a thinker and correct decision-maker. This is possible because of getting access to knowledge from the external world. Thus, education opens new windows to the outside world. Through an essay on right to education , we will discuss its importance and benefits.

Importance of Right to Education

Education is an essential condition to free individual development. It is what can make a person fit for the tasks of citizenship. Moreover, when you are not educated, you will hardly understand politics or stay vigilant about national interests.

Thus, participation in state affairs is going to be negligible only. In other words, a citizen like that will be no less than a slave to others. This will prevent them from rising in the stature of their personality. Usually, others will make decisions for that person.

Consequently, it will be a failure of democracy. The right to education is a civil right that safeguards individuals from all this. While it does not guarantee an identical intellectual training of everyone nonetheless, it does provide provisions for that type of education.

Without the right to education, people won’t be able to get live their life as they wish to, especially those who cannot afford it. It ensures that everyone gets an equal right to education so that we all can develop as a society without leaving anyone section out.

Thus, the right to education can be life-changing for people who wish to change their lives and break the old-age cycle. It helps individuals to get equal access to education like any other citizen without any discrimination.

Benefits of Right to Education

There are many benefits which the right to education provides us with. Firstly, it has brought many changes in society in terms of ease of education. Further, it ensures a consistent fee structure for all.

In other words, schools cannot make any sudden hikes in fees so people don’t suffer from it. After that, it also ensures that everybody gets an education easily by making it available to everyone.

A lot of underprivileged students cannot find ample resources despite having talent. Thus, it ensures that they can rightfully pursue their education. Consequently, it increases the literacy rate of a nation.

This is without a doubt a great advantage for any country. Moreover, it removes any kind of discrimination especially for people belonging to different economic backgrounds. Similarly, it applies to disabled people as well.

Most importantly, it ensures that schools offer seats to those who cannot afford to pay their fees. Thus, it helps the underprivileged people to partake in it thereby making education reach all sectors of society.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of Essay on Right to Education

All in all, every citizen must get a chance to get access to education which will enable them to judge, weigh and make decisions for themselves. It is a life-changer for many people all over the world especially those belonging to the underprivileged sector to outshine.

FAQ of Essay on Right to Education

Question 1: Why is education important for child development?

Answer 1: Education offers children to learn with diversity. Thus, children will develop healthy social interaction by blending in with other kids belonging to different cultures and backgrounds. Moreover, it can boost their self-esteem and self-confidence.

Question 2: Why is the right to education important?

Answer 2: The right to education is essential as it is a human right and indispensable for the exercise of other human rights. Quality education strives to guarantee the development of a fully-rounded human being. Similarly, it is one of the most powerful tools which can lift socially excluded children and adults out of poverty.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Is Education a Fundamental Right?

By Jill Lepore

Before sunrise on a morning just after Labor Day, 1977, Humberto and Jackeline Alvarez, Felix Hernandez, Rosario and Jose Robles, and Lidia and Jose Lopez huddled together in the basement of the United States Courthouse in Tyler, Texas , the Rose City, to decide just how much they were willing to risk for the sake of their children, for the sake of other people’s children, and for the sake, really, of everyone. Among them, the Alvarezes, Hernandez, the Robleses, and the Lopezes had sixteen children who, the week before, had been barred from entering Tyler’s public schools by order of James Plyler, Tyler’s school superintendent. On the first day of school, Rosario Robles had walked her five children to Bonner Elementary, where she was met by the principal, who asked her for the children’s birth certificates, and, when she couldn’t provide them, put her and the kids in his car and drove them home.

This hadn’t been the principal’s idea, or even Plyler’s. In 1975, when Texas passed a law allowing public schools to bar undocumented immigrants, Plyler ignored it. “I guess I was soft-hearted and concerned about the kids,” he said. Also, there weren’t many of them. About sixteen thousand children went to the schools in the East Texas city of Tyler, which considered itself the rose-growing capital of America and was named for John Tyler, the President of the United States who had pushed for the annexation of Texas in 1844, which led to a war with Mexico in 1846. Of those sixteen thousand students, fewer than sixty were the children of parents who had, without anyone’s permission, entered the United States from Mexico by crossing a border established in 1848, when the war ended with a treaty that turned the top half of Mexico into the bottom third of the United States. Jose Robles worked in a pipe factory. Humberto Alvarez worked in a meatpacking plant. They paid rent. They owned cars. They paid taxes. They grew roses.

Nevertheless, in July of 1977 Tyler’s school board, worried that Tyler would become a haven for immigrants driven away from other towns, insisted that undocumented children be kicked out of the city’s schools unless their parents paid a thousand dollars a year, per child, which few of them could afford, not even the Robleses, who owned their own home. Turned away from Bonner Elementary, the Robleses sent some of their kids to a local Catholic school—Jose did yard work in exchange for tuition—but they were put in touch with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which sent an attorney, Peter Roos, who filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Eastern District Court of Texas. It was presided over by a judge whose name was Justice. “There were two judges in Tyler,” Roos liked to say. “You got Justice, or no justice.”

Participating in a lawsuit as an undocumented immigrant is a very risky proposition. In a closed-door meeting, Roos asked that the parents be allowed to testify in chambers and so avoid revealing their identities, which could lead to deportation. They had come to the courthouse knowing that, at any moment, they could be arrested, and driven to Mexico, without so much as a goodbye. Judge William Wayne Justice refused to grant the protective order. “I am a United States magistrate and if I learn of a violation of the law, it’s my sworn duty to disclose it to the authorities,” he said. Roos went down to the basement, near the holding cells, to inform the families and give them a chance to think it over. They decided to go ahead with the suit, come what may. Justice did make efforts to protect them from publicity, and from harassment, decreeing that the proceeding would start before dawn, to keep the press and the public at bay, and that the plaintiffs’ names would be withheld.

Roos filed a motion requesting that the children be allowed to attend school, without paying tuition, while the case unfolded, which was expected to take years. “An educated populace is the basis of our democratic institutions,” his brief argued, citing Brown v. Board of Education. “A denial of educational opportunities is repugnant to our notions that an informed and educated citizenry is necessary to our society.” The case was docketed as Doe v. Plyler. “This is one that’s headed for the United States Supreme Court,” Justice told his clerk. Five years later, the appeal, Plyler v. Doe , went to Washington.

Some Supreme Court decisions are famous. Some are infamous. Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade. But Plyler v. Doe? It’s not any kind of famous. Outside the legal academy, where it is generally deemed to be of limited significance, the case is little known. (Earlier this year, during testimony before Congress, Betsy DeVos , the Secretary of Education, appeared not to have heard of it.) The obscurity of the case might end soon, though, not least because the Court’s opinion in Plyler v. Doe addressed questions that are central to ongoing debates about both education and immigration and that get to the heart of what schoolchildren and undocumented migrants have in common: vulnerability.

Plyler is arguably a controlling case in Gary B. v. Snyder, a lawsuit filed against the governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, by seven Detroit schoolchildren, for violating their constitutional right to an education. According to the complaint, “illiteracy is the norm” in the Detroit public schools; they are the most economically and racially segregated schools in the country and, in formal assessments of student proficiency, have been rated close to zero. In Brown, the Court had described an education as “a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” But the Detroit plaintiffs also cite Plyler, in which the majority deemed illiteracy to be “an enduring disability,” identified the absolute denial of education as a violation of the equal-protection clause, and ruled that no state can “deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders.” Dismissed by a district court in June, the case is now headed to the Sixth Circuit on appeal.

Plyler’s reach extends, too, to lawsuits filed this summer on behalf of immigrant children who were separated from their families at the U.S.-Mexico border. In June, the Texas State Teachers Association called on the governor of the state to make provisions for the education of the detained children, before the beginning of the school year, but has so far received no reply. Thousands of children are being held in more than a hundred detention centers around the country, many run by for-profit contractors. Conditions vary, but, on the whole, instruction is limited and supplies are few. “The kids barely learn anything,” a former social worker reported from Arizona.

Court-watchers have tended to consider Plyler insignificant because the Court’s holding was narrow. But in “ The Schoolhouse Gate: Public Education, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for the American Mind ” (Pantheon) Justin Driver, a law professor at the University of Chicago, argues that this view of Plyler is wrong. “Properly understood,” Driver writes, “it rests among the most egalitarian, momentous, and efficacious constitutional opinions that the Supreme Court has issued throughout its entire history.”

Driver is not alone in this view. In “ No Undocumented Child Left Behind ” (2012), the University of Houston law professor Michael A. Olivas called Plyler “the apex of the Court’s treatment of the undocumented.” In “ Immigration Outside the Law ” (2014), the U.C.L.A. law professor Hiroshi Motomura compared Plyler to Brown and described its influence as “fundamental, profound, and enduring.” Even people who think the case hasn’t been influential wish it had been. “Plyler v. Doe may be irrelevant in a strictly legal sense,” the legal journalist Linda Greenhouse wrote last year, “but there are strong reasons to resurrect its memory and ponder it today.” Because, for once, our tired, our poor, our huddled masses—the very littlest of them—breathed free.

Laura Alvarez, ten years old, rode in the family’s battered station wagon to the courthouse in Tyler, for a hearing held on September 9, 1977, at six in the morning. (During a related Texas case—later consolidated with Plyler—a nine-year-old girl spoke to the judge in chambers and told him that, since being barred from school, the only learning she was getting came from poring over the homework done by a younger sibling—an American citizen.) In Tyler, the assistant attorney general for the State of Texas showed up wearing bluejeans. She’d flown in late the night before, and had lost her luggage. After an attorney from the Carter Administration said that the Justice Department would not pursue the litigants while the trial proceeded, during which time the students would be able to attend school, Judge Justice issued the requested injunction.

Witnesses presented testimony about economies: educating these children cost the state money, particularly because they needed special English-language instruction, but not educating these children would be costly, too, in the long term, when they became legal residents but, uneducated, would be able to contribute very little to the tax base. The Judge had a policy preference: “The predictable effects of depriving an undocumented child of an education are clear and undisputed. Already disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, these children, without an education, will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class.” But the question didn’t turn on anyone’s policy preferences; it turned on the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, guarantees certain rights to “citizens” and makes two promises to “persons”: it prohibits a state from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and prohibits a state from denying “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Before Plyler, the Supreme Court had established that the due-process clause applied to undocumented immigrants, who are, plainly, “persons,” but it had not established that the equal-protection clause extended to them, and the State of Texas said that it didn’t, because undocumented immigrants were in the state illegally. Judge Justice disagreed. “People who have entered the United States, by whatever means, are ‘within its jurisdiction’ in that they are within the territory of the United States and subject to its laws,” he wrote.

But how to apply that clause? The courts bring a standard known as “strict scrutiny” to laws that abridge a “fundamental right,” like the right to life, liberty, and property, and to laws that discriminate against a particular class of people, a “suspect class,” like the freed slaves in whose interest the amendment was originally written—that is, any population burdened with disabilities “or subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment, or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process.”

Is education a fundamental right? The Constitution, drafted in the summer of 1787, does not mention a right to education, but the Northwest Ordinance, passed by Congress that same summer, held that “religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” By 1868 the constitutions of twenty-eight of the thirty-two states in the Union had provided for free public education, open to all. Texas, in its 1869 constitution, provided for free public schooling for “all the inhabitants of this State,” a provision that was revised to exclude undocumented immigrants only in 1975.

Justice skirted the questions of whether education is a fundamental right and whether undocumented immigrants are a suspect class. Instead of applying the standard of “strict scrutiny” to the Texas law, he applied the lowest level of scrutiny to the law, which is known as the “rational basis test.” He decided that the Texas law failed this test. The State of Texas had argued that the law was rational because undocumented children are expensive to educate—they often require bilingual education, free meals, and even free clothing. But, Justice noted, so are other children, including native-born children, and children who have immigrated legally, and their families are not asked to bear the cost of their special education. As to why Texas had even passed such a law, he had two explanations, both cynical: “Children of illegal aliens had never been explicitly afforded any judicial protection, and little political uproar was likely to be raised in their behalf.”

In September, 1978, Justice ruled in favor of the children. Not long afterward, a small bouquet arrived at his house, sent by three Mexican workers. Then came the hate mail. A man from Lubbock wrote, on the back of a postcard, “Why in the hell don’t you illegally move to mexico?”

“The Schoolhouse Gate” is the first book-length history of Supreme Court cases involving the constitutional rights of schoolchildren, a set of cases that, though often written about, have never before been written about all together, as if they constituted a distinct body of law. In Driver’s view, “the public school has served as the single most significant site of constitutional interpretation within the nation’s history.” Millions of Americans spend most of their days in public schools—miniature states—where liberty, equality, rights, and privileges are matters of daily struggle. Schools are also, not incidentally, where Americans learn about liberty, equality, rights, and privileges. “The schoolroom is the first opportunity most citizens have to experience the power of government,” Justice John Paul Stevens once wrote.

The Supreme Court paid relatively little attention to public schools until after the Second World War, but, since then, it has ruled on a slew of cases. Do students have First Amendment rights? In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Court said yes. Three students had sued when they were suspended for wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. In a 7–2 opinion, the Court sided with the students, affirming that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” and that public schools, though not democracies, “may not be enclaves of totalitarianism,” either. Justice Hugo Black issued a heated dissent. “It may be that the Nation has outworn the old-fashioned slogan that ‘children are to be seen not heard,’ ” he wrote, but he hoped it was still true that we “send children to school on the premise that at their age they need to learn, not teach.” A still more strident version of Black’s position was taken by Justice Clarence Thomas, in Morse v. Frederick (2007), a case involving a student who, when a parade passed in front of the school, waved a banner that read “ BONG H i TS 4 JESUS .” Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts marked an exception to the free-speech rights established in Tinker: students are not free to endorse drug use, but Thomas, concurring, used the occasion to wax nostalgic: “In the earliest public schools, teachers taught, and students listened. Teachers commanded, and students obeyed.”

Link copied

Just because the courts have recognized students’ First Amendment rights, it doesn’t follow that students have other rights. Do students have Fourth Amendment protections against “unreasonable searches and seizures”? Do they have Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination? Do they have Eighth Amendment protections against “cruel and unusual punishment”? In Goss v. Lopez (1975), the Court ruled that students cannot be suspended or expelled without at least some form of due process, but, two years later, in Ingraham v. Wright , it said that schools could punish children, physically, and without any procedure at all. This shift took place amid a growing conservative reaction that viewed the Court’s schoolhouse opinions as an example of judicial overreach, as a violation of states’ rights, and as part of the rise of permissiveness and the decline of order. Lopez had extended to students a Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, partly on the back of the argument that granting students rights is a way of teaching them about citizenship, fairness, and decency. “To insist upon fair treatment before passing judgment against a student accused of wrongdoing is to demonstrate that society has high principles and the conviction to honor them,” the legal scholar William G. Buss wrote , in an influential law-review article in 1971.

Plenty of teachers and school administrators think that students don’t have any rights. “I am the Constitution,” Joe Clarke, the principal of a high school in Paterson, New Jersey, liked to say, roaming the hallways with a Willie Mays baseball bat in the nineteen-eighties. This was an era that Driver describes as marking a Reagan Justice Department campaign for “education law and order.” The era produced a 1985 decision, T.L.O. v. New Jersey , in which the Court ruled that schools require only reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, to search students and their backpacks and lockers and other belongings.

Together, the education law-and-order regime and the rise of school shootings, beginning with Columbine in 1999, have produced a new environment in the nation’s schools, more than half of which, as of 2007, are patrolled by police officers. It was a police officer’s closed-door questioning of a seventh grader, taken out of his social-studies class in Chapel Hill, that led to the Court’s 2011 decision, in J.D.B. v. North Carolina , establishing that only in certain circumstances do students have Fifth Amendment rights. Do students have Second Amendment rights? Not yet. But last year a Kentucky congressman introduced a Safe Students Act that would have repealed the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, and allowed guns in schools. Meanwhile, more and more schools are surveilled by cameras, and bordered by metal detectors. If the schoolhouse is a mini-state, it has also become, in many places, a military state.

Few discussions of Plyler are more keenly sensitive to its ambiguities than Ana Raquel Minian’s “ Undocumented Lives: The Untold Story of Mexican Migration ” (Harvard), a revealing study that, because “undocumented lives” are nearly impossible to trace in the archives, relies on hundreds of oral histories. For Minian, Plyler, by its very casting of undocumented children as innocents, underscored the perception of undocumented adults as culpable—criminals to be arrested, detained, prosecuted, and deported.

As Texas appealed to the Fifth Circuit, Woodrow Seals, a district judge in Houston, ruled for the children in a related case. Seals didn’t agree that the undocumented children were a suspect class, but he didn’t need to, because he believed the Texas statute was not rational, and, in any case, he thought that absolute denial of an education was so severe a harm that, on its own terms, it required strict scrutiny. Public school is “the most important institution in this country,” Seals wrote, and “the Constitution does not permit the states to deny access to education to a discrete group of children within its border.” Seals handed down his opinion in July, 1980, just months before the Presidential election. He wrote in a letter, “I hate to think what will happen to my decision if Governor Reagan wins the election and appoints four new justices to the Supreme Court.”

Carter’s Justice Department had supported the plaintiffs. Reagan’s did not. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Plyler v. Doe on December 1, 1981. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund considered the case to be as important as Brown v. Board of Education, which, in 1954, Thurgood Marshall, then the head of the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, had argued before the Court. Marshall had presented Brown as a Fourteenth Amendment, equal-protection case. The plaintiffs in Plyler were making, essentially, the same argument. Conceivably, their case could realize the promise of Brown by establishing a constitutional right to an education. They could even press the claim that undocumented immigrants were not only persons under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment but also, doctrinally, a suspect class. None of these objectives were politically within their reach, however, given the makeup of the bench.

During oral arguments, Marshall peppered John Hardy, representing Plyler, about what the State of Texas did and did not provide for undocumented immigrants:

M arshall : Could Texas deny them fire protection? H ardy : Deny them fire protection? M arshall : Yes, sir. F-i-r-e. H ardy : Okay. If their home is on fire, their home is going to be protected with the local fire services just— M arshall : Could Texas pass a law and say they cannot be protected? H ardy : —I don’t believe so. M arshall : Why not? If they could do this, why couldn’t they do that? H ardy : Because . . . I am going to take the position that it is an entitlement of the . . . Justice Marshall, let me think a second. You . . . that is . . . I don’t know. That’s a tough question. M arshall : Somebody’s house is more important than his child?

Later, Marshall came back at him, asking, “Could Texas pass a law denying admission to the schools of children of convicts?” Hardy said that they could, but that it wouldn’t be constitutional. Marshall’s reply: “We are dealing with children. I mean, here is a child that is the son of a murderer, but he can go to school, but the child that is the son of an unfortunate alien cannot?”

Three days later, the Justices held a conference. According to notes made by Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., Chief Justice Warren Burger said, “14A applies as they are persons but illegals are not entitled to E/P.” Marshall said, “Children are not illegals. . . . E/P means what it says.” Five Justices wanted to uphold the lower court’s opinion, four to reverse it. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., volunteered to write the majority opinion. He circulated a draft that called for strict scrutiny, deeming the children “a discrete and historically demeaned group.” Powell said that he couldn’t sign it.

Powell, appointed by Nixon in 1971, had been, for a decade, the chair of the school board of Richmond, Virginia. Sometimes known as “the education justice,” he was deeply committed to public schools. But, because he was also committed to judicial restraint, he was opposed to declaring education to be a constitutional right. “It is not the province of this Court to create substantive constitutional rights in the name of guaranteeing equal protection of the laws,” he had written in 1973, in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez , a case that was widely seen as having shut the door on the idea. For Powell, establishing education as a fundamental right invited claims: are health care, food, and shelter fundamental rights, too?

Powell was unwilling to sign Brennan’s first draft, not only because it went against his opinion in Rodriguez but also because the draft contained language “that will be read as indicating that all illegal aliens, adults as well as children, may be ‘discrete and insular minorities for which the Constitution offers a special solicitude.’ ” Brennan wrote a second draft; Powell once again asked him to narrow his opinion. But other Justices, who wanted to uphold the lower court’s decision, sought to move Brennan further to the left. After reading a draft of Burger’s dissent (“The Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill,” the Chief Justice wrote, “nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem”), Justice Harry Blackmun circulated a proposal for issuing a different opinion, arguing that education has a special status because it’s foundational to all other political rights, being necessary “to preserve rights of expression and participation in the political process, and therefore to preserve individual rights generally.” Marshall, Brennan, and Stevens were prepared to join that opinion. But Blackmun needed Powell to make five. And Powell wouldn’t sign on. “As important as education has been in the life of my family for three generations,” he wrote to Blackmun, “I would hesitate before creating another heretofore unidentified right.”

In the end, Brennan crafted a compromise. Education is not a constitutional right, he wrote, “but neither is it merely some governmental ‘benefit.’ ” Undocumented migrants are not a suspect class, but their children are vulnerable, and laws that discriminate against them, while not subject to strict scrutiny, deserved “heightened scrutiny.” Powell wrote to Brennan after reading the draft, “Your final product is excellent and will be in every text and case book on Constitutional law.”

And yet its interpretation remains limited. “Powell wanted the case to be about the education of children, not the equal protection rights of immigrants, and so the decision was,” Linda Greenhouse remarked in a careful study of the Court’s deliberations, published a decade ago. For many legal scholars, Plyler looks like a dead end. It didn’t cut through any constitutional thickets; it opened no new road to equal rights for undocumented immigrants, and no new road to the right to an education. It simply meant that no state could pass a law barring undocumented children from public schools. But that is exactly why Driver thinks that Plyler was so significant: without it, states would have passed those laws, and millions of children would have been saddled with the disability of illiteracy.

In 1994, when Californians were contemplating Proposition 187, which would have denied services to undocumented immigrants, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times was able to track down thirteen of the original sixteen Plyler children. Ten had graduated from high school in Tyler. Two worked as teacher’s aides. Laura Alvarez and all six of her brothers and sisters stayed in Tyler after Judge Justice issued his opinion in Plyler. She became a legal resident of the United States under the terms of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, graduated in 1987 from John Tyler High School, and spent a decade working for the Tyler school district. “Without an education, I don’t know where I’d be right now,” she said.

“I’m glad we lost,” James Plyler said in an interview in 2007, when he was eighty-two, and long since retired, and enjoying his grandchildren, who are themselves of Mexican descent.

Lewis Powell retired from the Court in 1987. He was replaced by Anthony Kennedy. In another opinion, Powell had written that children should not be punished for the crimes of their parents. “Visiting this condemnation on the head of an infant is illogical and unjust,” because “legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing.” It’s hard to know what Kennedy’s likely replacement, Brett Kavanaugh, would say about whether the Constitution guarantees undocumented migrant children the equal protection of the law. He’s never cited Plyler in his scholarship and, in opinions issued from the bench, has cited it only once. He hasn’t written much about equal protection, either, though he has said, in passing, that he finds the equal-protection clause ambiguous. As for undocumented migrant children, he has issued one important opinion, a dissent in Garza v. Hargan, last year, that, while not citing Plyler, described the plaintiff in the case, an undocumented immigrant minor in Texas, as particularly vulnerable.

“The minor is alone and without family or friends,” Kavanaugh wrote. “She is in a U.S. Government detention facility in a country that, for her, is foreign. She is 17 years old.” The reason for her vulnerability? “She is pregnant and has to make a major life decision.” She wanted to have an abortion; Kavanaugh had earlier joined a decision ruling that she must first leave detention and find a sponsoring foster family. When, in a further appeal, the D.C. court vacated that ruling, Kavanaugh dissented, arguing that the court had acted on “a constitutional principle as novel as it is wrong: a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand.” Her name was kept out of the proceedings. She was another Doe. It is not clear whether she ever finished her education. ♦

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Jonathan Blitzer

By Louis Menand

Search Search

Right to education

This page is about the right to education and how it must be put into place for every child as a fundamental human right.

What is the right to education, how many people are denied the right to education, why does it matter, what do we mean by a right to education, who is responsible for enforcing the right to education, ​what do governments need to do to about the right to education​, what must countries do to meet their obligations.

Education is a basic human right for all and is important for everyone to make the most of their lives. Other human rights include the right to freedom from slavery or torture and to a fair trial.

Having an education helps people to access all of their other human rights. Education improves an individual’s chances in life and helps to tackle poverty.

According to the the most recent figures available from the  UNESCO Institute for Statistics in July 2016 , 263 million children and youth are out of school.

This includes 61 million children who should be in primary school, 60 million of lower secondary school age (ages 12 to 14) and 142 million who are aged between 15 and 17.

Girls and children from sub-Saharan Africa are most likely to be missing out on their education.

Armed conflict also means that children struggle to get an education – 22 million children of primary school age are affected by this. 75 million children and adolescents have had their education directly affected by conflict and emergencies.

Education reduces poverty, decreases social inequalities, empowers women and helps each individual reach their full potential.

It also brings significant economic returns for a country and helps societies to achieve lasting peace and sustainable development. Education is key to achieving all other human rights.

Every person is entitled to a quality education without discrimination, which means:

• A compulsory free primary school education for every child
• Secondary school (including technical training) must be available to everyone – states must work towards providing this for free
• Higher education must be equally accessible, with countries working towards the goal of making this free
• Fundamental education for those who missed out on primary school should be encouraged and available

It also means parents have the right to choose schools for their children and for individuals and organisations to set up schools that meet minimum standards.

Theirworld also believes that every child should have access to two years of free, quality pre-primary education.

Governments must provide good quality education and make sure all children can access it, without discrimination.

This is an international legal obligation and governments can be held accountable for failing to provide education for all its citizens.

Education has been recorded as a basic human right in international law since 1948. It is included in many documents and treaties including:

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
• Convention Against Discrimination in Education (1960)
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966)
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979)
• African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (1986)
• Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)
• World Declaration on Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs (1990)
• The Dakar Framework for Action: Education for All (2000)
• Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006)
• UN General Assembly Resolution on the Right to Education in Emergency Situations (2010)

Governments must guarantee that education in their country or state is:

• Available.  There must be adequate materials, classrooms, trained teachers and so on – so that a quality education is available to every child.
• Accessible.  Schools must be within reach, suitable for disabled children and fit for purpose. They must be affordable for all children. There must be no discrimination for gender, race, religion or any other reason.
• Acceptable.  Education must be of a high quality and include relevant information that is appropriate. Children with disabilities have the right to the same quality of education.
• Adaptable.  Schools and school systems must be suitable for the communities they serve.

Governments have to make sure all children can get the education they are entitled to by doing the following:

• Removing anything that prevents access to quality education, such as repealing laws that cause discrimination
• Preventing individuals or groups from stopping children from being educated
• Taking steps to make sure children can get a quality education – this could include building schools or training teachers

The international community knows that achieving the full extent of the right to education will take time and resources.

Governments must put plans in place to meet the minimum standard of free, compulsory primary education and then take steps to extend the right to education to every child.

The right to education without discrimination is part of the minimum standard and must be created immediately.

It’s very important that governments continue to work towards the full right to education and don’t allow plans to stall or be delayed.

As well as governments, other organisations and individuals play a part in making sure that all children can access quality education. These include intergovernmental agencies such as UNESCO, international financial institutions, businesses, civil societies and parents.

I reviewed my Yale admissions file to see what the Ivy League school really thought about my application. What I learned surprised me.

• I reviewed my Yale admissions file to see what the Ivy League school thought about my application. 
• Most of my scores weren't that impressive, but they really liked my genuine attitude and excitement.
• Reviewing my application reminded me how far I have come as a student. 

"Brian spoke so fast it was electrifying."

This was the first quote from my Yale interviewer. She wrote those words in my admissions file, a document I finally got my hands on three years after being accepted into Yale University .

I remember that interview like it was yesterday. It was a Zoom call — my application cycle happened at the crux of pandemic remote learning — and I was wearing my father's old, oversize dress shirt. The interviewer was lovely. Some of my answers to her questions probably didn't make sense, and she was right. I definitely forgot to breathe in between my sentences.

But viewing my admissions file years later gave me a peek into what my interviewer was actually thinking that day, and I learned what really got me into Yale.

I reviewed my application as a junior with the registrar

Every student in the US can review their college admissions file under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. I emailed my university registrar, and within 45 days, a member of their support staff reached back out to schedule a virtual meeting. Picture-taking and recording were not allowed, so I jotted notes by hand.

There was very little verbal interaction between me and the staff member. She screen-shared my admissions file and let me read in silence. Something told me she understood the emotional weight of this moment for students, and I appreciated that. It is intimidating for any teenager to package their identity into a 650-word common application essay and a questionnaire — but it is arguably even more so to witness retrospectively how everything was judged.

I got a behind-the-scenes look into Yale admissions when they read my application

Each aspect of my application was rated out of nine points. My readers gave me a six for my extracurriculars and for my first teacher recommendation. They gave me a seven for my second teacher recommendation and my counselor's recommendation. I received an "outstanding" for my interview and a 2++ for my overall rating. The overall rating is given on a scale from 1 to 4, with 1 being the highest, and pluses were a good sign.

Related stories

In all, my ratings weren't exactly bad, but they weren't extraordinary either. The numbers on the pages stared back at me — cold, formulaic, and transactional. It felt strange to be reduced to a system of numbers, knowing that something as qualitative as extracurricular activities could still be broken down and scored.

Beyond the ratings, however, what truly stood out were the comments left by the admissions officers . Many of the comments were on my character, my essays, and the possible contributions I would make as a student.

"I teared up reading Essay 1," one reader wrote of my common application essay. Another said of the same essay: "His Chinese New Years are untraditional in that they remind him of his family's financial struggles."

I got emotional. All the memories of writing that essay came flooding back. I remembered how difficult it was to start it. I knew there was no easy way for someone to understand me without first knowing my background. I wanted to prove that I deserved a seat at the table where legacy students and the wealthy continue to outnumber their first-generation, low-income peers like myself.

I kept reading and found more comments from admissions officers that moved me: "He treats his mom well;" "He seems to have a truly good heart;" "One of the most intelligent, sincere, jovial students ever met;" "I have no doubt that Brian would push his peers at Yale to stand up for what's right;" and "I come away with compelling impressions that the student would contribute significantly to the undergrad community."

I searched for a negative comment. There were none.

I didn't deserve this, I muttered under my breath. Here I was, a junior in college, no longer a 4.0 student , my post-grad plans murky, balancing two part-time jobs and hoping to make it out of midterms alive. It felt good knowing that someone had rooted for me to be here.

The process reminded me how far I have come

Coming from an underserved household where no one had gone to college, I had always looked at the Ivy League application process skeptically.

Without the resources to enroll in SAT test prep and the financial safety net to pursue unpaid leadership positions and resume-boosting activities at school, I had doubted the "holistic" admissions process many colleges boast. My critiques about Yale remain numerous.

But at least in their comments, the admissions committee gave me grace in that they reviewed my application in light of my circumstances. I might never know exactly what happened in that reading room. Still, a couple of lessons ring true, based on my own viewing experience and my conversations with others who had done the same: Good character and potential are the key; I didn't need to be perfect.

And finally, I — not anyone else — needed to give me the fighting chance of applying in the first place.

"GPA is outstanding, especially in context," an admissions officer said. "This is a home run."

• Main content

Finished Papers

2269 Chestnut Street, #477 San Francisco CA 94123

5 Signs of a quality essay writer service

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Supreme Court Got It Wrong: Abortion Is Not Settled Law

By Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw

Ms. Murray is a law professor at New York University. Ms. Shaw is a contributing Opinion writer.

In his majority opinion in the case overturning Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito insisted that the high court was finally settling the vexed abortion debate by returning the “authority to regulate abortion” to the “people and their elected representatives.”

Despite these assurances, less than two years after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, abortion is back at the Supreme Court. In the next month, the justices will hear arguments in two high-stakes cases that may shape the future of access to medication abortion and to lifesaving care for pregnancy emergencies. These cases make clear that Dobbs did not settle the question of abortion in America — instead, it generated a new slate of questions. One of those questions involves the interaction of existing legal rules with the concept of fetal personhood — the view, held by many in the anti-abortion movement, that a fetus is a person entitled to the same rights and protections as any other person.

The first case , scheduled for argument on Tuesday, F.D.A. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, is a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s protocols for approving and regulating mifepristone, one of the two drugs used for medication abortions. An anti-abortion physicians’ group argues that the F.D.A. acted unlawfully when it relaxed existing restrictions on the use and distribution of mifepristone in 2016 and 2021. In 2016, the agency implemented changes that allowed the use of mifepristone up to 10 weeks of pregnancy, rather than seven; reduced the number of required in-person visits for dispensing the drug from three to one; and allowed the drug to be prescribed by individuals like nurse practitioners. In 2021, it eliminated the in-person visit requirement, clearing the way for the drug to be dispensed by mail. The physicians’ group has urged the court to throw out those regulations and reinstate the previous, more restrictive regulations surrounding the drug — a ruling that could affect access to the drug in every state, regardless of the state’s abortion politics.

The second case, scheduled for argument on April 24, involves the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (known by doctors and health policymakers as EMTALA ), which requires federally funded hospitals to provide patients, including pregnant patients, with stabilizing care or transfer to a hospital that can provide such care. At issue is the law’s interaction with state laws that severely restrict abortion, like an Idaho law that bans abortion except in cases of rape or incest and circumstances where abortion is “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.”

Although the Idaho law limits the provision of abortion care to circumstances where death is imminent, the federal government argues that under EMTALA and basic principles of federal supremacy, pregnant patients experiencing emergencies at federally funded hospitals in Idaho are entitled to abortion care, even if they are not in danger of imminent death.

These cases may be framed in the technical jargon of administrative law and federal pre-emption doctrine, but both cases involve incredibly high-stakes issues for the lives and health of pregnant persons — and offer the court an opportunity to shape the landscape of abortion access in the post-Roe era.

These two cases may also give the court a chance to seed new ground for fetal personhood. Woven throughout both cases are arguments that gesture toward the view that a fetus is a person.

If that is the case, the legal rules that would typically hold sway in these cases might not apply. If these questions must account for the rights and entitlements of the fetus, the entire calculus is upended.

In this new scenario, the issue is not simply whether EMTALA’s protections for pregnant patients pre-empt Idaho’s abortion ban, but rather which set of interests — the patient’s or the fetus’s — should be prioritized in the contest between state and federal law. Likewise, the analysis of F.D.A. regulatory protocols is entirely different if one of the arguments is that the drug to be regulated may be used to end a life.

Neither case presents the justices with a clear opportunity to endorse the notion of fetal personhood — but such claims are lurking beneath the surface. The Idaho abortion ban is called the Defense of Life Act, and in its first bill introduced in 2024, the Idaho Legislature proposed replacing the term “fetus” with “preborn child” in existing Idaho law. In its briefs before the court, Idaho continues to beat the drum of fetal personhood, insisting that EMTALA protects the unborn — rather than pregnant women who need abortions during health emergencies.

According to the state, nothing in EMTALA imposes an obligation to provide stabilizing abortion care for pregnant women. Rather, the law “actually requires stabilizing treatment for the unborn children of pregnant women.” In the mifepristone case, advocates referred to fetuses as “unborn children,” while the district judge in Texas who invalidated F.D.A. approval of the drug described it as one that “starves the unborn human until death.”

Fetal personhood language is in ascent throughout the country. In a recent decision , the Alabama Supreme Court allowed a wrongful-death suit for the destruction of frozen embryos intended for in vitro fertilization, or I.V.F. — embryos that the court characterized as “extrauterine children.”

Less discussed but as worrisome is a recent oral argument at the Florida Supreme Court concerning a proposed ballot initiative intended to enshrine a right to reproductive freedom in the state’s Constitution. In considering the proposed initiative, the chief justice of the state Supreme Court repeatedly peppered Nathan Forrester, the senior deputy solicitor general who was representing the state, with questions about whether the state recognized the fetus as a person under the Florida Constitution. The point was plain: If the fetus was a person, then the proposed ballot initiative, and its protections for reproductive rights, would change the fetus’s rights under the law, raising constitutional questions.

As these cases make clear, the drive toward fetal personhood goes beyond simply recasting abortion as homicide. If the fetus is a person, any act that involves reproduction may implicate fetal rights. Fetal personhood thus has strong potential to raise questions about access to abortion, contraception and various forms of assisted reproductive technology, including I.V.F.

In response to the shifting landscape of reproductive rights, President Biden has pledged to “restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.” Roe and its successor, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, were far from perfect; they afforded states significant leeway to impose onerous restrictions on abortion, making meaningful access an empty promise for many women and families of limited means. But the two decisions reflected a constitutional vision that, at least in theory, protected the liberty to make certain intimate choices — including choices surrounding if, when and how to become a parent.

Under the logic of Roe and Casey, the enforceability of EMTALA, the F.D.A.’s power to regulate mifepristone and access to I.V.F. weren’t in question. But in the post-Dobbs landscape, all bets are off. We no longer live in a world in which a shared conception of constitutional liberty makes a ban on I.V.F. or certain forms of contraception beyond the pale.

Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University and a host of the Supreme Court podcast “ Strict Scrutiny ,” is a co-author of “ The Trump Indictments : The Historic Charging Documents With Commentary.”

Kate Shaw is a contributing Opinion writer, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and a host of the Supreme Court podcast “Strict Scrutiny.” She served as a law clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens and Judge Richard Posner.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

NPR defends its journalism after senior editor says it has lost the public's trust

David Folkenflik

NPR is defending its journalism and integrity after a senior editor wrote an essay accusing it of losing the public's trust. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

NPR is defending its journalism and integrity after a senior editor wrote an essay accusing it of losing the public's trust.

NPR's top news executive defended its journalism and its commitment to reflecting a diverse array of views on Tuesday after a senior NPR editor wrote a broad critique of how the network has covered some of the most important stories of the age.

"An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America," writes Uri Berliner.

A strategic emphasis on diversity and inclusion on the basis of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, promoted by NPR's former CEO, John Lansing, has fed "the absence of viewpoint diversity," Berliner writes.

NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, wrote in a memo to staff Tuesday afternoon that she and the news leadership team strongly reject Berliner's assessment.

"We're proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories," she wrote. "We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world."

NPR names tech executive Katherine Maher to lead in turbulent era

She added, "None of our work is above scrutiny or critique. We must have vigorous discussions in the newsroom about how we serve the public as a whole."

A spokesperson for NPR said Chapin, who also serves as the network's chief content officer, would have no further comment.

Praised by NPR's critics

Berliner is a senior editor on NPR's Business Desk. (Disclosure: I, too, am part of the Business Desk, and Berliner has edited many of my past stories. He did not see any version of this article or participate in its preparation before it was posted publicly.)

Berliner's essay , titled "I've Been at NPR for 25 years. Here's How We Lost America's Trust," was published by The Free Press, a website that has welcomed journalists who have concluded that mainstream news outlets have become reflexively liberal.

Berliner writes that as a Subaru-driving, Sarah Lawrence College graduate who "was raised by a lesbian peace activist mother ," he fits the mold of a loyal NPR fan.

Yet Berliner says NPR's news coverage has fallen short on some of the most controversial stories of recent years, from the question of whether former President Donald Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election, to the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19, to the significance and provenance of emails leaked from a laptop owned by Hunter Biden weeks before the 2020 election. In addition, he blasted NPR's coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

On each of these stories, Berliner asserts, NPR has suffered from groupthink due to too little diversity of viewpoints in the newsroom.

The essay ricocheted Tuesday around conservative media , with some labeling Berliner a whistleblower . Others picked it up on social media, including Elon Musk, who has lambasted NPR for leaving his social media site, X. (Musk emailed another NPR reporter a link to Berliner's article with a gibe that the reporter was a "quisling" — a World War II reference to someone who collaborates with the enemy.)

When asked for further comment late Tuesday, Berliner declined, saying the essay spoke for itself.

The arguments he raises — and counters — have percolated across U.S. newsrooms in recent years. The #MeToo sexual harassment scandals of 2016 and 2017 forced newsrooms to listen to and heed more junior colleagues. The social justice movement prompted by the killing of George Floyd in 2020 inspired a reckoning in many places. Newsroom leaders often appeared to stand on shaky ground.

Leaders at many newsrooms, including top editors at The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times , lost their jobs. Legendary Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron wrote in his memoir that he feared his bonds with the staff were "frayed beyond repair," especially over the degree of self-expression his journalists expected to exert on social media, before he decided to step down in early 2021.

Since then, Baron and others — including leaders of some of these newsrooms — have suggested that the pendulum has swung too far.

Author Interviews

Legendary editor marty baron describes his 'collision of power' with trump and bezos.

New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger warned last year against journalists embracing a stance of what he calls "one-side-ism": "where journalists are demonstrating that they're on the side of the righteous."

"I really think that that can create blind spots and echo chambers," he said.

Internal arguments at The Times over the strength of its reporting on accusations that Hamas engaged in sexual assaults as part of a strategy for its Oct. 7 attack on Israel erupted publicly . The paper conducted an investigation to determine the source of a leak over a planned episode of the paper's podcast The Daily on the subject, which months later has not been released. The newsroom guild accused the paper of "targeted interrogation" of journalists of Middle Eastern descent.

Heated pushback in NPR's newsroom

Given Berliner's account of private conversations, several NPR journalists question whether they can now trust him with unguarded assessments about stories in real time. Others express frustration that he had not sought out comment in advance of publication. Berliner acknowledged to me that for this story, he did not seek NPR's approval to publish the piece, nor did he give the network advance notice.

Some of Berliner's NPR colleagues are responding heatedly. Fernando Alfonso, a senior supervising editor for digital news, wrote that he wholeheartedly rejected Berliner's critique of the coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict, for which NPR's journalists, like their peers, periodically put themselves at risk.

Alfonso also took issue with Berliner's concern over the focus on diversity at NPR.

"As a person of color who has often worked in newsrooms with little to no people who look like me, the efforts NPR has made to diversify its workforce and its sources are unique and appropriate given the news industry's long-standing lack of diversity," Alfonso says. "These efforts should be celebrated and not denigrated as Uri has done."

After this story was first published, Berliner contested Alfonso's characterization, saying his criticism of NPR is about the lack of diversity of viewpoints, not its diversity itself.

"I never criticized NPR's priority of achieving a more diverse workforce in terms of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation. I have not 'denigrated' NPR's newsroom diversity goals," Berliner said. "That's wrong."

Questions of diversity

Under former CEO John Lansing, NPR made increasing diversity, both of its staff and its audience, its "North Star" mission. Berliner says in the essay that NPR failed to consider broader diversity of viewpoint, noting, "In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans."

Berliner cited audience estimates that suggested a concurrent falloff in listening by Republicans. (The number of people listening to NPR broadcasts and terrestrial radio broadly has declined since the start of the pandemic.)

Former NPR vice president for news and ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin tweeted , "I know Uri. He's not wrong."

Others questioned Berliner's logic. "This probably gets causality somewhat backward," tweeted Semafor Washington editor Jordan Weissmann . "I'd guess that a lot of NPR listeners who voted for [Mitt] Romney have changed how they identify politically."

Similarly, Nieman Lab founder Joshua Benton suggested the rise of Trump alienated many NPR-appreciating Republicans from the GOP.

In recent years, NPR has greatly enhanced the percentage of people of color in its workforce and its executive ranks. Four out of 10 staffers are people of color; nearly half of NPR's leadership team identifies as Black, Asian or Latino.

"The philosophy is: Do you want to serve all of America and make sure it sounds like all of America, or not?" Lansing, who stepped down last month, says in response to Berliner's piece. "I'd welcome the argument against that."

"On radio, we were really lagging in our representation of an audience that makes us look like what America looks like today," Lansing says. The U.S. looks and sounds a lot different than it did in 1971, when NPR's first show was broadcast, Lansing says.

A network spokesperson says new NPR CEO Katherine Maher supports Chapin and her response to Berliner's critique.

The spokesperson says that Maher "believes that it's a healthy thing for a public service newsroom to engage in rigorous consideration of the needs of our audiences, including where we serve our mission well and where we can serve it better."

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Gerry Holmes. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

Blog The Education Hub

https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/04/02/how-to-claim-15-hours-free-childcare-code/

Thousands of parents of two-year-olds benefit from 15 hours free childcare - here's how

We’re making the  biggest investment  by a UK government into childcare in history, doubling the amount we expect to spend over the next few years from around £4 billion to around £8 billion each year.  

We've already started to rollout the first phase of the expansion. As of April 2024, eligible parents of children who have turned 2-years-old before 1 April are getting help with their childcare costs by accessing 15 hours of government-funded childcare.

The rollout of support is part of our plan to help families – freeing thousands of couples from having to choose between having a family and a career.

This builds on existing government-funded childcare and later in the year the support will be extended to include some children from when they turn 9-months-old.

• Currently, eligible working parents of 3 and 4-year-olds can access 30 hours of childcare support.  
• Eligible working parents of 2-year-olds are also now able to access 15 hours childcare  support.
• From  September 2024 , 15 hours childcare support will be extended to eligible working parents with a child from 9-months-old.  
• From  September 2025 , support will reach 30 hours for eligible working parents with a child from 9-months-old up to school age.  

When can I apply?  

Applications are now open for eligible working parents whose children will be 2 or older by the 31 August to receive 15 hours childcare, starting from September 2024.

And from 12 May, eligible working parents whose children will be aged between 9- and 23-months old on 31st August, can apply to receive 15 hours childcare starting from September 2024.

It’s important to remember that codes need to be renewed every three months, so parents applying close to 12 May will need to renew their code prior to the offer starting in September.

You are able to claim your place the term after your child turns the relevant age. This gives local authorities and childcare providers enough time to prepare.

How do I apply?   

You apply online here on   Gov.uk once you have checked our  eligibility criteria .  

You’ll need to make sure you have the following information to hand before starting the application:  

• your national insurance number (or unique taxpayer reference if you are self-employed)  
• the date you started or are due to start work  
• details of any government support or benefits you receive  
• the UK birth certificate reference number (if you have one) for your child.  

You may find out if you’re eligible straight away, but it can take up to 7 days.  

Once your application has been approved, you’ll get a code to give to your childcare provider.  

Eligible parents are also able to access Tax-Free Childcare through the same application system. You can apply for Tax-Free Childcare at any time. However, you don't need to apply for Tax-Free Childcare to be eligible to apply for the 15 hours childcare scheme.   

What happens once I receive my code?  

Once you receive your code, you’ll need to take it to your childcare provider, along with your National Insurance number and your child’s date of birth.  

Your childcare provider will process the code to provide your place.  

Places will be available for September in every area of the country, but a significant minority of settings hold waiting lists of over six months. If you have a preferred nursery for September, you should reach out now to secure a place for your child ahead of receiving your code.  

Your local authority can provide support for finding a government-funded place in your area.  

What if I’m already registered for Tax Free Childcare?  

Parents must reconfirm that they are still eligible for Tax-Free Childcare every 3 months.  

Parents who are already claiming Tax-Free Childcare and need to reconfirm their eligibility between 1 April and 12 May will be automatically issued a code in the post from HMRC soon after the 12 May.   

This is to ensure every parent can give their code to their provider in good time. This code will be valid to apply for 15 hours of government-funded childcare from September.   

If I receive a code in a letter from HMRC, does this make my code on my Childcare Account invalid?  

No. Both codes will be valid.   

Do I need to wait for my reconfirmation window to add another child to my account?  

A parent who is already using the childcare service for another child can add a new child to their account at any time.  

Your reconfirmation cycle for your current Tax-Free Childcare will not affect this.  

How are you making sure there will be enough childcare places for eligible parents?  

Parents that have a preferred place for September should reach out now to their local provider to secure a physical place for their child ahead of time.  

To make sure there are enough places available, we’re investing over £400 million in 2024-25 to increase the hourly rates paid to local authorities.  

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has independently reported that the average funding rates for two-year-olds and under 2s paid by government from April 2024 are projected to be substantially higher than the market rate paid by parents last year, and we have committed to further increases to provider rates for the next two years.  

We have also committed to increasing hourly funding rates over the next two years by an estimated £500 million, to make sure providers can increase places at each phase of the rollout.    

You may also be interested in:

• Budget 2023: Everything you need to know about childcare support
• Before and after school childcare: Everything you need to know about wraparound care
• Free childcare: How we are tackling the cost of childcare

Tags: 15 hours free childcare , Applying for 15 hours free childcare , Childcare , Free childcare 2024 , Free childcare eligibility , tax-free childcare , When to apply for 15 hour free childcare

Sharing and comments

Share this page, related content and links, about the education hub.

The Education Hub is a site for parents, pupils, education professionals and the media that captures all you need to know about the education system. You’ll find accessible, straightforward information on popular topics, Q&As, interviews, case studies, and more.

Please note that for media enquiries, journalists should call our central Newsdesk on 020 7783 8300. This media-only line operates from Monday to Friday, 8am to 7pm. Outside of these hours the number will divert to the duty media officer.

Members of the public should call our general enquiries line on 0370 000 2288.

Sign up and manage updates

Follow us on social media, search by date, comments and moderation policy.