essay right to education

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

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

Apply Now for the United Nations The Hague Immersion Programme

The UN Immersion Programme Is Open for Applications!

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

NGO Jobs: Our Short Guide

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.

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

Essay on Right to Education 1000+ Words

The right to education is a fundamental human right that is essential for the development of individuals and the progress of societies. In this essay, we will explore the importance of the right to education, provide evidence of its significance, and discuss how it empowers individuals and communities.

Defining the Right to Education

The right to education, as defined by international agreements like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, states that every person has the right to free and compulsory education, at least at the primary level. It ensures that education is accessible, available, and of good quality.

The Power of Knowledge

Education is often described as the key to unlocking a world of opportunities. It equips individuals with knowledge and skills that are crucial for personal growth and development. Without education, many doors to success remain closed.

Education for All

The right to education is not limited to a select few; it applies to everyone, regardless of their background, gender, or socioeconomic status. This inclusivity ensures that education is a powerful tool for breaking the cycle of poverty and inequality.

Transforming Lives

Education has the power to transform lives. It empowers individuals to make informed choices, pursue their dreams, and contribute meaningfully to their communities. For example, many great leaders, scientists, and artists attribute their success to the education they received.

The Impact on Health

Education is closely linked to better health outcomes. Educated individuals are more likely to make healthy choices, access healthcare, and understand the importance of preventive measures. This, in turn, leads to improved overall well-being.

Fostering Critical Thinking

Education fosters critical thinking and problem-solving skills. It encourages individuals to question, analyze, and evaluate information, which is essential in today’s complex world. Critical thinkers are better equipped to face challenges and find solutions.

Promoting Social Cohesion

Education promotes social cohesion by bringing people from diverse backgrounds together. Schools provide a platform for children to interact, learn about different cultures, and build friendships, fostering tolerance and understanding.

Economic Benefits

Education plays a significant role in economic development. Countries with educated populations tend to have stronger economies, as educated individuals are more likely to secure well-paying jobs and contribute to innovation and productivity.

Breaking Gender Barriers

The right to education has been instrumental in breaking gender barriers. In many parts of the world, girls were once denied access to education. However, the right to education has helped advance gender equality by ensuring that all children, regardless of gender, have equal educational opportunities.

Global Efforts

Various international organizations and governments are working tirelessly to ensure that the right to education is upheld worldwide. Initiatives like UNESCO’s Education for All campaign and the Sustainable Development Goals emphasize the importance of education as a global priority.

Conclusion of Essay on Right to Education

In conclusion, the right to education is a fundamental human right that empowers individuals, transforms lives, and advances societies. It is the key to knowledge, personal growth, and economic prosperity. Education fosters critical thinking, promotes social cohesion, and breaks down barriers, including those related to gender. The global efforts to ensure access to quality education for all are a testament to its significance. Let us remember that the right to education is not just a privilege; it is a powerful force for positive change in the world.

Also Check: List of 500+ Topics for Writing Essay

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

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 Jessica Winter

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.

• Essay Samples
• College Essay
• Writing Tools
• Writing guide

Creative samples from the experts

↑ Return to Essay Samples

Persuasive Essay: The Right to Education

Introduction Within this essay I will provide sufficient logic and evidence to prove that education is a right that all people deserve. In the developed world it is a right that may be met with an actual education, but in other countries there is no formal education system and it is a shame those people are denied access to an education. This essay will prove that it is the right of all people to have a formal education.

Body There are some people that throw away their education. They are given the right to it, a right that was fought with the blood of their ancestors, and they throw it away because it is not fun and it is inconvenient. Their discarding of their education is no reason why the right should be revoked. Some people do not know a good thing when they have it, and their ignorance will only spread if people are denied the right to education. The right to an education should be present so that people can make a choice as to whether they exercise that right.

Bill Cosby has been criticized heavily for telling things the way they are. He was accused of turning his back on the black community because he said that black people have themselves to blame if things are going bad. One of his points was that a black person may call another person “white” in a derogatory fashion if he or she is caught studying. Yet, he also pointed out that a person fresh from Africa will go to a library and study for free if needs be, just so that he or she may have an education. As Bill Cosby points out, there are attitudes that make it appear as if the right to an education is a bad thing, but when you see the attitude of a person that comes from a country without a formal education system then it becomes obvious that the right to an education is a good thing.

Ignorance will only spread further if people are not shown how to make informed decisions. Education teaches people how to learn and conduct their own studies. It teaches people how to think critically and shows how the life choices of other people have led to bad situations. An education can teach all of this to a child so that the child need not live in ignorance all of his or her life.

There is the obvious conclusion that education is needed because people need an education to get a job. Though that is a good point, this essay also pointed out that the right to an education should not be denied because some people have it and turn their back on it. People have the right to an education, and choosing to exercise that right is up to them. There is also the fact that ignorance will spread and people will not develop into thinking adults without the benefit of education. Results based education systems may miss this point, but education can lead to a person learning how to think critically and learning how to make informed adult decisions.

Follow Us on Social Media

Get more free essays

Send via email

Most useful resources for students:.

• Free Essays Download
• Writing Tools List
• Proofreading Services
• Universities Rating

Contributors Bio

Find more useful services for students

Free plagiarism check, professional editing, online tutoring, free grammar check.

• IAS Preparation
• UPSC Preparation Strategy
• Right Education Act Rte

Right to Education Act (RTE) - Indian Polity Notes

The Right to Education Act (RTE) is important legislation that marks a watershed in the education system in India. With its enactment, the right to education has become a fundamental right in the country. In this article, you can read all about the RTE, its significance, provisions and challenges for the UPSC exam .

Read about important acts in India in the linked article.

Right to Education Act

The Act is completely titled “the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act” . It was passed by the Parliament in August 2009. When the Act came into force in 2010, India became one among 135 countries where education is a fundamental right of every child.

• “The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State, may by law determine.”
• As per this, the right to education was made a fundamental right and removed from the list of Directive Principles of State Policy.
• The RTE is the consequential legislation envisaged under the 86th Amendment.
• The article incorporates the word “free” in its title. What it means is that no child (other than those admitted by his/her parents in a school not supported by the government) is liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and completing elementary education.
• This Act makes it obligatory on the part of the government to ensure admission, attendance and completion of elementary education by all children falling in the age bracket six to fourteen years.
• Essentially, this Act ensures free elementary education to all children in the economically weaker sections of society.

A few important articles that a candidate must read to cover the notes on the topic, ‘Education,’ comprehensively are linked below:

RTE Provisions

The provisions of the RTE Act are briefly described below. The Act provides for:

• The right of free and compulsory education to children until they complete their elementary education in a school in the neighbourhood.
• The Act makes it clear that ‘compulsory education’ implies that it is an obligation on the part of the government to ensure the admission, attendance and completion of elementary education of children between the ages of six and fourteen. The word ‘free’ indicates that no charge is payable by the child which may prevent him/her from completing such education.
• The Act provides for the admission of a non-admitted child to a class of his/her appropriate age.
• It mentions the duties of the respective governments, the local authorities and parents in ensuring the education of a child. It also specifies the sharing of the financial burden between the central and the state governments.
• It specifies standards and norms for Pupil Teacher Ratios (PTR), infrastructure and buildings, working days of the school and for the teachers.
• It also says there should be no urban-rural imbalance in teacher postings. The Act also provides for the prohibition of the employment of teachers for non-educational work, other than census, elections and disaster relief work.
• The Act provides that the teachers appointed should be appropriately trained and qualified.
• Mental harassment and physical punishment.
• Screening procedures for the admission of children.
• Capitation fees.
• Private tuition by the teachers.
• Running schools with no recognition.
• The Act envisages that the curriculum should be developed in coherence with the values enshrined in the Indian Constitution, and that which would take care of the all-round development of the child. The curriculum should build on the knowledge of the child, on his/her potentiality and talents, help make the child free of trauma, fear and anxiety via a system that is both child-centric and child-friendly.

Significance of RTE

With the passing of the Right to Education Act, India has moved to a rights-based approach towards implementing education for all. This Act casts a legal obligation on the state and central governments to execute the fundamental rights of a child (as per Article 21 A of the Constitution). 

• The Act lays down specific standards for the student-teacher ratio, which is a very important concept in providing quality education.
• It also talks about providing separate toilet facilities for girls and boys, having adequate standards for classroom conditions, drinking water facilities, etc.
• The stress on avoiding the urban-rural imbalance in teachers’ posting is important as there is a big gap in the quality and numbers regarding education in the villages compared to the urban areas in the country.
• The Act provides for zero tolerance against the harassment and discrimination of children. The prohibition of screening procedures for admission ensures that there would be no discrimination of children on the basis of caste, religion, gender, etc.
• The Act also mandates that no kid is detained until class 8. It introduced the Continuous Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) system in 2009 to have grade-appropriate learning outcomes in schools.
• The Act also provides for the formation of a School Management Committee (SMC) in every school in order to promote participatory democracy and governance in all elementary schools. These committees have the authority to monitor the school’s functioning and prepare developmental plans for it.
• The Act is justiciable and has a Grievance Redressal mechanism that permits people to take action when the provisions of the Act are not complied with.
• This provision is included in Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act. All schools (private, unaided, aided or special category) must reserve 25% of their seats at the entry level for students from the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and disadvantaged groups.
• When the rough version of the Act was drafted in 2005, there was a lot of outcry in the country against this large percentage of seats being reserved for the underprivileged. However, the framers of the draft stood their ground and were able to justify the 25% reservation in private schools.
• This provision is a far-reaching move and perhaps the most important step in so far as inclusive education is concerned.
• This provision seeks to achieve social integration.
• The loss incurred by the schools as a result of this would be reimbursed by the central government.
• The Act has increased enrolment in the upper primary level (Class 6-8) between 2009 and 2016 by 19.4%.
• In rural areas, in 2016, only 3.3% of children in the 6 – 14 years bracket were out of school.

Criticism of RTE Act

Even though the RTE Act is a step in the right direction towards the achievement of making education truly free and compulsory in India, it has met with several criticisms. Some of the criticisms are given below:

• The Act was drafted hastily without much thought or consultation being given to the quality of education imparted.
• Children below 6 years are not covered under the Act.
• Many of the schemes under the Act have been compared to the previous schemes on education such as the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, and have been plagued with corruption charges and inefficiency.
• At the time of admissions, many documents such as birth certificate, BPL certificate, etc. are required. This move seems to have left out orphans from being beneficiaries of the Act.
• There have been implementational hurdles in the 25% reservation of seats for EWS and others in private schools. Some of the challenges in this regard are discriminatory behaviour towards parents and difficulties experienced by students to fit in with a different socio-cultural milieu.
• In case a student fails in the annual exam, he/she is given extra training and made to appear for a re-exam. If this re-exam is not passed, the student can be detained in the class. 
• This amendment was made after many states complained that without regular exams, the learning levels of children could not be evaluated effectively. 
• The states which were against this amendment were six states with higher learning outcomes due to their effective implementation of the CCE system as mandated in the Act. (The six states were Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Goa, Telangana and Maharashtra.)
• It has been found that many states find it difficult to move to the CCE system of assessment. This is chiefly due to a lack of teachers’ training and orientation.
• Another criticism levelled against the Act is that instead of increasing the standards and outcomes of the public education system in India, it passes the buck to private schools with some respect.

Making the right to education a fundamental right took more than 6 decades after independence. Now, the government and all stakeholders should focus on the quality of education, and gradually move towards having a single educational system and platform across the country for all sections of society to foster equality, inclusion, and unity.

Kickstart your UPSC 2024   Preparation today!

Right to Education Act (RTE) – Indian Polity:- Download PDF Here

UPSC Questions related to the Right to Education Act (RTE)

What are the basic features of right to education act.

Some of the basic features of the RTE are:

• Free and compulsory education for all children in the age group 6 to 14.
• There will not be any detention or examination until elementary education is completed. However, there has been an amendment to this (as mentioned above in the criticisms of the Act).
• This makes providing education a legal obligation of the governments.
• It also makes it mandatory for all private schools to reserve 25% of their seats for the EWS and disadvantaged groups.

What is the age limit for RTE?

All children between the ages of 6 and 14 have the right to free education under the provisions of the Act.

What is Article 21 of the Constitution?

Article 21 deals with the right to life and personal liberty. It is a fundamental right. To know more click on Right to Life (Article 21) – Indian Polity Notes .

What is the importance of the right to education?

Leave a comment cancel reply.

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation, register with byju's & download free pdfs, register with byju's & watch live videos.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

RIGHT TO EDUCATION IN INDIA: CHALLENGES AND ACCESSIBILITY

Related Papers

Hiranmaya Nanda

This article is an attempt made by the author to reflect the concept and education and Right to Education in the primary level as well as in higher level. Prima Facie education was not a fundamental right however implicit references have been made on right to education. The Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) which is Government of India's flagship programme for achievement of Universalization of Elementary Education (UEE) in a time bound manner, as mandated by 86th amendment to the Constitution of India making free and compulsory Education to the Children of 6-14 years age group, a Fundamental Right. At the same time constitutional amendment under article 21(A) inserted. The Right to Education Act, 2009 however emerged with a flame of hope for children in the country. The right to education is a radically distinct human right and is the key source of power of knowledge in the hands of citizens. The education provides the knowledge to claim civil, political, economic and social and cultural rights from the nation. The researcher also examined the passing of the Right to Education Act, 2009, and discussed various case laws of the Apex Court .Various statutory provisions, draft laws, rules & regulations, commission reports and government initiatives have been discussed to analyse the guaranteed Right to Education.

SSRN Electronic Journal

Raj Kumar Yadav

Universal Journal of Educational Research

Horizon Research Publishing(HRPUB) Kevin Nelson

This Research paper deals with the conditions of the education of children in India, the various schemes and policies carried out in providing education. How Elementary Education has developed in India? Attempts are made to find out the laws in the country, in which basic education finds the place in this respect nature and scope of Right to Education Act has been analysed. Education plans, policies and various Government schemes have been discussed. Paper examines and investigates the constitutional growth of Education with aims to achieve the goal of equal opportunity to all and social justice as enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution. Various articles inherent in the Indian constitution have been discussed. Judicial response to the need of the right to education has also been highlighted. Global Commitment for Compulsory Education has also been discussed with agenda 2030 which refers to the global dedication of the Education for all. Lastly, there is a conclusion and some suggestions. The certainty and promise RTE Act which shows up on paper should be fulfilled in its execution which is very defective. Despite the fact that several legislative enactments, judicial pronouncements, and many government schemes make effective implementation of elementary education, we are lacking behind to achieve the desired goals and to meet with an international commitment regarding compulsory education. In the same way, as other endeavoured social changes in India, this also needs to begin at the grass-root level and requires a boundless effort to make a difference in a deep-rooted mind.

Asian Journal of Education and E Learning

Mubashir Malik

Parvin Sultana

Euro Asia International Journals

Dr. Mamta Viswanath

The Indian education system under the British rule had been primarily based on the truancy model. This should have changed after independence but did not on account of various reasons. This paper takes a look at Indian education policies and underscores the urgent need for a human rights approach. This would need a policy with utmost care so that the poorest of poor are able to realize the right to education. Right to Education is a human right and should be read with the right to life, right to equal opportunity of work etc. It is connected with right to life because education enables a person to lead a dignified life. Similarly, it is connected with right to equal opportunity of work because with education people become aware of other rights and can understand and claim their right to equal opportunity of work. Though the Indian Constitution gives its citizens the fundamental right to education with effect from Apr 1, 2010, whether the requirements of a rights based approach have been met is yet to be seen. Secondly, the paper will briefly analyse the present status of right to education in India to understand the drawbacks at policy level and identify the factors responsible for the same. Thirdly, the paper will highlight the ways in which a rights-based approach can be adopted at the implementation level. Inspiration can be drawn from various countries which have given right to education to their citizens and are nearing universalisation of elementary education. The right to education can be fully realized in the true sense of the term only if it is implemented with a concerted rights-based approach to education.

UGC SPONSORED NATIONAL SEMINAR ON ‘MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS ON EDUCATION: THE TASK AHEAD OF INDIA WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ITS NORTH-EAST REGION’

This paper provides a public policy perspective of the Right to Education in India. Right to Education is the latest fundamental right given by the Indian Constitution to its citizens. The Indian state now has the legal obligation to provide free elementary education to children between the ages of 6-14 years. To ensure that this education policy also does not drag its feet like all the previous time bound plans/policies, we just cannot stop with legislation. It has to be followed up by proper enforcement and implementation. Without a concrete framework and administrative machinery, the right to education cannot solve the puzzle of achieving access, equality, quality and the Millennium Development Goals in education. Secondly, the paper briefly analyses the previous education policies to understand their drawbacks. Those policies were broadly institutional and incremental in nature and thus falling short of expectations. Thirdly, the paper will highlight what positive changes the legislation of the Right to Education will bring about in education and thus help in achieving the Millennium Development Goals in Education. It is noteworthy that the formulation of the Right to Education saw a massive and nationwide opinion-building exercise. Lastly, the paper will discuss policy options available and best suited to achieve the Millennium Development Goals in education. It is a big challenge going uphill but not an impossible task.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences

sujata bhan

satish gaikwad

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Today's news
• Reviews and deals
• Climate change
• 2024 election
• Fall allergies
• Health news
• Mental health
• Sexual health
• Family health
• So mini ways
• Unapologetically
• Buying guides

Entertainment

• How to Watch
• My watchlist
• Stock market
• Biden economy
• Personal finance
• Stocks: most active
• Stocks: gainers
• Stocks: losers
• Trending tickers
• World indices
• US Treasury bonds
• Top mutual funds
• Highest open interest
• Highest implied volatility
• Currency converter
• Basic materials
• Communication services
• Consumer cyclical
• Consumer defensive
• Financial services
• Industrials
• Real estate
• Mutual funds
• Credit cards
• Balance transfer cards
• Cash back cards
• Rewards cards
• Travel cards
• Online checking
• High-yield savings
• Money market
• Home equity loan
• Personal loans
• Student loans
• Options pit
• Fantasy football
• Pro Pick 'Em
• College Pick 'Em
• Fantasy baseball
• Fantasy hockey
• Fantasy basketball
• Download the app
• Daily fantasy
• Scores and schedules
• GameChannel
• World Baseball Classic
• Premier League
• CONCACAF League
• Champions League
• Motorsports
• Horse racing
• Newsletters

New on Yahoo

• Privacy Dashboard

State laws threaten to erode academic freedom in US higher education

• Oops! Something went wrong. Please try again later. More content below

A university professor addressing his students during a lecture. Getty Images.

Over the past few years, Republican state lawmakers have introduced more than 150 bills in 35 states that seek to curb academic freedom on campus. Twenty-one of these bills have been signed into law.

This legislation is detailed in a new white paper published by the Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom , a project established by the American Association of University Professors, or AAUP. Taken together, this legislative onslaught has undermined academic freedom and institutional autonomy in five distinct and overlapping ways.

1. Academic gag orders

As detailed in the report, state legislators introduced 99 academic gag orders during legislative sessions in 2021, 2022 and 2023. All of the 10 gag orders signed into law were done so by Republican governors. These bills assert that teaching about structural racism, gender identity or unvarnished accounts of American history harm students.

These gag orders are widely known as “divisive concept” or “anti-CRT” bills. CRT is an acronym for critical race theory, an academic framework that holds racism as deeply embedded in America’s legal and political systems. The partisan activists, such as Christopher Rufo , have used this term to generate a “ moral panic ” as part of a political response to the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests.

For example, in April 2022, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed House Bill 7, the “ Stop Woke Act .” The law defines a “divisive concept” as any of eight vague claims. They include claims that “Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist.”

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker described this law as “ positively dystopian .” He noted that the government’s own lawyers admitted that the law would likely make any classroom discussion concerning the merits of affirmative action illegal. The vague wording of these gag orders has a chilling effect , leaving many faculty unsure about what they can and cannot legally discuss in the classroom.

2. Bans on DEI programs

The expansion of diversity, equity and inclusion – or DEI – services on campus was a major outcome of the racial justice protests in 2020. By 2023, however, the legislative backlash was in full swing. Forty bills restricting DEI efforts were introduced during the 2023 legislative cycle, with seven signed into law.

For example, Texas’ Senate Bill 17 drew directly from model policy language developed by Rufo and published by the Manhattan Institute , a right-wing think tank. SB 17 banned diversity statements and considerations in hiring. It also restricted campus diversity training and defunded campus DEI offices at Texas’ public universities.

As detailed in the AAUP white paper, only a handful of people testified in favor of SB 17, and almost all had stated or unstated affiliations with right-wing think tanks. In contrast, more than a hundred educators and citizens testified, or registered to testify, against the bill. Since its passage, Texas public universities have seen the closing of DEI programs and reduced campus services for students from minority populations. For example, after the Legislature accused the University of Texas-Austin of violating SB 17, the school was forced to shut down its DEI office. This involved laying off 40 employees .

3. Weakening tenure

Tenure was developed to shield faculty members from external political pressure. The protections of tenure make it possible for faculty to teach, research and speak publicly without fear of losing their jobs because their speech angers those in power. As detailed in the report, however, during the 2021, 2022 and 2023 legislative sessions, 20 bills were introduced, with two bills weakening tenure protections signed into law in Florida and another in Texas .

In Florida, for example, SB 7044 created a system of post-tenure review, empowering administrators to review tenured faculty every five years. The law further empowers administrators to dismiss those whose performance is deemed unsatisfactory. The law also requires that faculty post course content in a public and searchable database.

The AAUP criticized the law , noting that SB 7044 has “substantially weakened tenure in the Florida State University System and, if fully implemented as written,” would effectively “eliminate tenure protections.” Now even tenured faculty have reason to fear that what they teach might be construed as a “divisive concept,” as CRT, or as promoting DEI.

4. Mandating content

Lawmakers in several states have also passed legislation mandating viewpoint diversity, establishing new academic programs and centers to teach conservative content and shifting curricular decision-making away from the faculty.

For example, Florida’s Senate Bill 266 expanded the Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education at the University of Florida, without faculty input or oversight. The original proposal for the Hamilton Center stated that the center’s goal was to advance “ a conservative agenda ” within the curriculum.

SB 266 also gave the governing boards overseeing the university and college systems the authority to decide which classes count toward the core curriculum. This power was exercised in November 2023 after Manny Diaz, the education commissioner in Florida, requested that the boards remove an introduction to sociology course . He stated on social media that the discipline had been “ hijacked by left-wing activists and no longer serves its intended purpose as a general knowledge course for students.”

5. Weakening accreditation

The accreditation process is an obscure area of academic governance whereby colleges and universities regularly subject themselves to external peer review. Nonprofit accrediting agencies conduct these institutional performance reviews.

As detailed in the report, during the 2021-23 legislative cycles, six bills were introduced – three of them were passed into law – weakening the accreditation process, thereby making it easier for political interests to shape university policy.

For example, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill’s accreditor, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, warned the school’s board of trustees that establishing the School of Civic Life and Leadership without faculty oversight and consultation raised serious concerns about institutional independence. The Legislature responded with Senate Bill 680 , which would require that North Carolina public universities choose a different accrediting agency each accreditation cycle. Eventually passed as part of the omnibus House Bill 8, this policy allows schools to “shop” for an accrediting agency less likely to object to such political interference in the curriculum.

These five overlapping and reinforcing attacks on academic freedom and institutional autonomy threaten to radically transform public higher education in ways that serve the partisan interests of those in power.

Isaac Kamola , Associate Professor of Political Science, Trinity College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST.

The post State laws threaten to erode academic freedom in US higher education appeared first on Ohio Capital Journal .

Recommended Stories

You can now watch godzilla minus one at home on netflix.

Netflix announced the surprise release today, coinciding with the film’s arrival for digital purchase and rental on VOD platforms including Prime Video and Apple TV. The black-and-white version will come to Netflix later this summer.

President Biden vetoes crypto custody bill

President Joe Biden has vetoed H.J.Res. 109, a congressional resolution that would have overturned the Securities and Exchange Commission's current approach to banks and crypto. Specifically, the resolution targeted the SEC’s Staff Accounting Bulletin 121, which presents guidance around how banks can handle customers’ crypto assets — in effect, they must treat those assets as liabilities.

Money buys you freedom: Advice for new college graduates

Here are tips on building wealth and living a life with meaning for this year's college graduates.

Industries may be ready for humanoid robots, but are the robots ready for them?

Neura was showing off its long-promised 4NE-1 robot, amid more traditional form factors. Notably absent at the annual Association for Advancing Automation (A3) show was an Agility booth. Agility chief product officer Melonee Wise told me that the company had opted to sit this one out, as it currently has all the orders it can manage.

Junkyard Gem: 1999 Pontiac Firebird Coupe

A 1999 Pontiac Firebird coupe with 3.8-liter Buick V6 and five-speed manual transmission, found in a Colorado wrecking yard.

You can no longer use Tumblr’s tipping feature 

The reason for shutting down the feature is simple: it failed to gain traction. Additionally, it has been Tumblr's plan since last year's reorg to put an end to things that aren't performing well. In 2022, Tumblr introduced Tips as a complementary feature to Post+, its subscription offering that allowed creators to put content behind a paywall.

This Week in AI: Can we (and could we ever) trust OpenAI?

This week in AI, OpenAI launched discounted plans for nonprofits and education customers and drew back the curtains on its most recent efforts to stop bad actors from abusing its AI tools. OpenAI removed one of the voices used by its AI-powered chatbot ChatGPT after users pointed out that it sounded eerily similar to Johansson's. Johansson later released a statement saying that she hired legal counsel to inquire about the voice and get exact details about how it was developed -- and that she'd refused repeated entreaties from OpenAI to license her voice for ChatGPT. Now, a piece in The Washington Post implies that OpenAI didn't in fact seek to clone Johansson's voice and that any similarities were accidental.

'Lifesaver for my severe back pain': This bolster pillow is just $23 at Amazon

More than 8,000 shoppers rave about this cushion.

The T-shirt folding board shoppers say makes 'doing the laundry fun' is just $12

This problem-solving gadget takes the hassle out of getting your drawers and closets organized.

Meta seeks to revitalize Facebook's image among Gen Z with new product push

Meta is looking to revamp Facebook's image as a place for younger Gen. Z users.

AI training data has a price tag that only Big Tech can afford

Data is at the heart of today's advanced AI systems, but it's costing more and more -- making it out of reach for all but the wealthiest tech companies. Last year, James Betker, a researcher at OpenAI, penned a post on his personal blog about the nature of generative AI models and the datasets on which they're trained. In it, Betker claimed that training data -- not a model's design, architecture or any other characteristic -- was the key to increasingly sophisticated, capable AI systems.

Kings coach Mike Brown agrees to contract extension after previous impasse with team, per reports

Mike Brown could make up to $10 million annually with the Kings.

Braves, down Ronald Acuña Jr., hope May’s malaise doesn’t lead to June swoon — 'We’re too talented'

Even before his injury, Acuña was one of many Braves struggling at the plate, and the team now faces a roster-wide power outage.

President Biden dons Chiefs helmet, jokes with Travis Kelce in Super Bowl champs' second White House visit

Travis Kelce crashed the White House podium last year. This time, he received a direct invitation.

Cut the car clutter with Amazon's top-selling trash can, on sale for just $5

Say goodbye to mobile messes with this clever multitasker — it's leakproof to spare your ride from sticky spills.

Inside EV startup Fisker’s collapse: how the company crumbled under its founders' whims

Over the past eight years, famed vehicle designer Henrik Fisker suggested his electric vehicle startup would deliver on all of these promises. Instead, Fisker Inc. is on the brink of bankruptcy after having delivered just a few thousand electric Ocean SUVs. As the company grasps for an improbable rescue, employees who spoke to TechCrunch say the blame largely rests on the shoulders of two people: the husband-and-wife team whose name is on the hood.

Report: Pelicans to defer Lakers' first-round pick in Anthony Davis trade until 2025

The New Orleans Pelicans have opted not to take the Los Angeles Lakers' first-round pick in this year's NBA Draft as part of the Anthony Davis trade. The Pelicans will take the Lakers' pick next year.

Jennifer Lopez cancels summer tour amid rumors of Ben Affleck marital strain: 'I am completely heartsick'

Jennifer Lopez has called off her "This Is Me … Live Tour," calling the last-minute decision "absolutely necessary."

Gable Steveson, Olympic gold medal winner and NCAA champion wrestler, signs with Bills

Olympic gold medal and two-time NCAA champion wrestler Gable Steveson has signed with the Buffalo Bills. He'll attempt to make the team as a defensive tackle.

Hacked, leaked, exposed: Why you should never use stalkerware apps

Last week, an unknown hacker broke into the servers of the U.S.-based stalkerware maker pcTattletale. The hacker then stole and leaked the company’s internal data. “This took a total of 15 minutes from reading the techcrunch article,” the hackers wrote in the defacement, referring to a recent TechCrunch article where we reported that pcTattletale was used to monitor several front desk check-in computers at Wyndham hotels across the United States.

3 Things To Consider When Hiring A Top Ivy League College Consultant

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

College consultant

Navigating the college admissions process can be overwhelming for both students and parents—particularly for those who aspire to attend Ivy League and other top schools. While well-meaning parents try their best to guide their students through the process, many are shocked to discover how much the admissions landscape has changed since they themselves applied. For instance, Harvard’s already minute acceptance rate dropped by more than half in just over two decades—while the Class of 2000 had an admissions rate of 10.9% , a meager 3.59% of students were admitted to the Class of 2028. Even schools outside of the Ivy League have seen similar plunges—NYU’s acceptance rate for the Class of 2002 was 34% , compared to 8% for the Class of 2028; Northwestern’s acceptance rate for the 2001 admissions cycle was 34.2% and plummeted to 7.5% in the 2023-24 cycle; and in 1999, Vanderbilt saw an admissions rate of over 61% , compared to today’s 5.1% . These declines are due in large part to dramatically swelling applicant pools. Regardless of the cause, these seismic shifts have left parents feeling incapable of helping their students navigate today’s cutthroat and complex college admissions landscape.

This is where private college admissions consultants come in. College consultants offer specialized knowledge and experience in the admissions process, particularly when it comes to applying to prestigious institutions. They can provide personalized guidance tailored to each student’s strengths, interests, and goals—and they are becoming increasingly popular. In 2022, a top private school in New York City, Horace Mann’s student newspaper reported that 33% of upper division students who answered their survey self-reported using a private consultant (a number that is likely higher than reported due to the stigma around college consultants.) Additionally, one in five surveyed incoming freshmen in Harvard’s Class of 2022 reported working with a private admissions consultant.

Despite their rising popularity, it is important for parents to recognize that not all college admissions consultants are created equal. A college admissions consultant is a significant investment in your child’s future, and as such, it is critical to find a consultant whose methods are ethical, results-proven, and aligned with your child’s needs and goals.

As you search for the right consultant to fit your needs, here are three core factors to take into consideration:

1. Credentials

College admissions consultants have an array of backgrounds and expertise, and it is important to think critically about how consultants’ experiences shape their ability to coach your student. While it may be tempting to assume that a consultancy that hires former admissions officers is implicitly capable of preparing your student for the rigors of the admissions process, this is not necessarily the case. The admissions landscape has changed dramatically over the last five years, meaning that a consultant who served on an admissions committee a decade ago will likely not possess special insights about what Ivy League and other top schools are looking for now .

Finally, The Internet Found ‘The Backrooms’

This sprawling kauai resort boasts 50 lush acres and a stunning saltwater lagoon, elden ring and starfield offer contrasting takes on the rpg genre.

Additionally, the Supreme Court case concerning affirmative action rendered more information about the admissions process publicly available than ever before. We now know how Harvard ranks applicants, what factors are most important in their admissions considerations, and how these factors have changed over time. While more information is now known about what Harvard looks for in its admissions process, a strong admissions consultant’s unique expertise lies in helping an applicant develop such qualities. If a consultancy promises insider information on the admissions process but fails to articulate specific strategies for helping your student boost their admissions profile, they are likely all bark and no bite.

2. Payment Structure

While hiring a college consultant is undoubtedly a financial investment, it should not be a financial surprise . Parents should seek a consultancy that is transparent about cost and that doesn’t nickel-and-dime clients for additional services. Consultants bill in a variety of ways—some are hourly, others charge by the number of schools to which a student wishes to apply, and others offer unlimited, flat-fee packages. Parents should go into consultations with a sense of their student’s needs and goals and pose detailed questions about the costs of additional or non-included services that may be required. Parents should be particularly wary of hourly packages, as the process of applying to college will likely take more time than parents initially assume, leading to unexpected additional fees and ballooning overall costs.

3. Methodology

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, college admissions consultants offer vastly different structures of support for students, and it is critical to understand their strengths and weaknesses before committing to a particular consultancy. A cookie-cutter approach doesn’t work in the competitive landscape of college admissions. Each student has unique strengths, interests, and aspirations, and a top-notch consultant will take the time to understand these individual qualities and craft a tailored strategy that highlights the student’s best attributes. This includes selecting a mix of courses, extracurricular activities, leadership roles, and summer programs that align with the student's goals. They also help students identify and develop their passions, which serves to differentiate students in the eyes of admissions committees.

While some consultancies pair students with one mentor, others take a more team-based approach, assigning multiple team members to work with each student on different aspects of their applications. The latter model can easily become confusing, and communication between students, parents, and members of the consultancy can quickly devolve. Those considering a consultancy that assigns more than one team member to a student should ask detailed questions about the lines of communication and how students will receive a cohesive and centralized plan for boosting their applicant profile. Finally, parents should seek out a consultancy that employs full-time consultants. Many firms hire part-time consultants with other impressive credentials or professional networks—however, these consultants are often stretched thin and struggle to provide the comprehensive support that students need to excel in the process. As a rule of thumb, parents should assume that the process will take more time, energy, and attention than they anticipate, and seek out a consultant who can accommodate their student’s busy schedule as much as possible

Choosing the right college consultant is a significant decision that can impact your student’s future. Take your time to research, ask questions, and evaluate your options carefully. The right consultant will not only help your student craft a strong application but also empower them to present their authentic self in the best possible light and provide them with the tools they will need to excel in college and beyond.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

ROTC Scholarships

Pay for college with the army’s help..

Cover your college education while gaining valuable leadership skills in Army ROTC with financial support from the Army.

Get a scholarship with Army ROTC.

Scholarships and other monetary support are available to help with costs when you join Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC). Focus on your education and graduate into a secure path as an Army Officer—and with less debt for the school years your scholarship covers. You’re eligible if you are a high school student enrolling in college, enrolled in college, or an active-duty enlisted Soldier.

Reach your financial goals.

Get tuition and fees covered.

Get the full college experience, only with less debt, in exchange for a career serving in the Army as an Officer after graduation. ROTC scholarships are awarded based on academic achievements and can be applied to any of the 1,000+ participating schools, covering either tuition and fees or room and board.

Get money for expenses and books.

Receive monthly help to offset living and book costs. All ROTC scholarships include an extra $420 each month throughout the school year for expenses like housing, along with $1,200 each year to spend on books.

Apply in high school or college.

You’re eligible to apply for an Army ROTC scholarship at a participating school upon completion of your junior year of high school or as a college student.

High School

Here’s what to know when applying for an ROTC scholarship in high school.

Start the application process.

To get started on your ROTC scholarship application, create an account and log in to the Scholarship Application. From there, you’ll locate and contact the Recruiting Operations Officer at the school you plan to attend. Most of them have served before and understand the process you’re going through.

Important dates to remember

ROTC scholarship applications opened on June 12, 2023. Applications must be started no later than March 4, 2024 to be eligible for review by the Army ROTC National Scholarship Board for the 2024 – 2025 school year.

Due October 9, 2023

Applications will be reviewed from October 16 – 20, 2023.

Due January 15, 2024

Applications will be reviewed from January 22 – 26, 2024.

Due March 11, 2024

Applications will be reviewed from March 18 – 22, 2024.

Your obligation with an ROTC scholarship

Your acceptance of the ROTC scholarship means a future service obligation of eight years in the Army, with requirements for active duty and/or the Army Reserve or Army National Guard depending on the scholarship. You may be eligible to serve part time in the Army Reserve or Army National Guard while pursuing a civilian career immediately after graduation.

Scholarship recipients who wish to exit the ROTC program may do so after their freshman year of college without any obligation. 

Here’s what to know when applying for an ROTC scholarship in college.

Types of scholarships available.

You’ll have access to four-year, three-year, or two-year scholarships if you decide to join Army ROTC as a college student. Four-year scholarships are most common for students who are on a five-year college plan, while two-year scholarships are more common for those who attend certain participating two-year community colleges before transferring to a four-year university.

To get started on your ROTC scholarship application, locate and contact the Recruiting Operations Officer at your school to discuss how to apply. Most of them have served before and understand the process you’re going through. Their years of experience will help the process.

Scholarship recipients who wish to exit the ROTC program may do so after their freshman year of college without any obligation.

Requirements to be eligible for an ROTC scholarship.

To be accepted for any ROTC scholarship, you must meet these standards.

Be a U.S. citizen.

Be at least 17 and under 31 in year of commissioning.

Have a high school diploma or equivalent.

Have an unweighted high school GPA of at least 2.50 if you’re in high school while applying.

Have taken the SAT or ACT.

Take the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) .

Meet the physical weight and height requirements .

Agree to accept a commission and serve in the Army , Army Reserve , or Army National Guard .

Career-building scholarship programs

Nursing scholarships.

Nursing students can apply for any Army ROTC scholarship by following the directions above. Being a nurse in the Army provides you with opportunities not found in the civilian world, including a three-week paid Nurse Summer Training Program, which introduces students to the Army Medical Department and the roles and responsibilities of an Army Nurse Corps Officer .

Enlisted Soldier Scholarships

As an enlisted Soldier, you have access to the Green to Gold program and scholarship opportunities to cover costs for tuition or room and board, while you earn your undergraduate or graduate degree.

TAKE THE FIRST STEP.

Get In Touch

You have no saved jobs.

Take a short quiz or explore more than 200 jobs that might interest you.

Tell us about yourself.

All fields are required.

Activity Title:

GoArmy Title:

Now, who referred you?

Fill in the first and last names of the person who referred you, along with their Department of Defense identification number (DoD ID #) for proof of service and phone number if they want to receive status updates. Their information is protected and maintained by the Privacy & Security Notice

Answer True or False to the following statements based on your current situation (optional).

Find rotc programs at schools you’re most interested in..

Privacy Act Notice: The above disclosure is voluntary. All information will be used strictly for recruiting purposes. The authority for the collection of this information is Title 10, United States Code, Sections 503, 505, 508, and 12102, and EO 9397. For more information, please review our Privacy & Security Notice.

Recent entries.

Give us a call

Contact your local recruiting office with any questions.

• International
• Schools directory
• Resources Jobs Schools directory News Search

GCSE English - Grade 9 Model Essay Answers

Last updated

1 June 2024

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

Resources included (4)

English - An Inspector Calls Model Essay

GCSE English - Jekyll & Hyde Model Essay

GCSE English - Macbeth Model Essay

This bundle includes grade 9 model responses to multiple GCSE 30 mark questions on Macbeth, Jekyll & Hyde, and An Inspector Calls.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

Key data on girls and women’s right to education

This page presents several graphics analyzing the data generated from  HerAtlas , UNESCO’s interactive tool monitoring girls and women’s right to education worldwide . The graphics are updated regularly to reflect the latest data from the tool. 

Unless specified otherwise, data source is HerAtlas .

Right to education, pregnant and parenting girls

According to our monitoring tool, worldwide, 2% of countries restrict the right to education of married, pregnant and parenting girls and women in their legal framework. These countries are located in three different regions. The restrictions could either prohibit them from attending school or sitting an exam, limiting them to attend adult or evening classes, or separating them from their peers and isolating them for fear that they would ‘influence’ other students.

Data demonstrates that secondary school-aged girls are substantially more likely to be out of school when the legal right to education of pregnant and parenting girls is restricted, especially at the upper secondary level. It also follows the general trend, as there are more adolescent out-of-school at the upper secondary level.

62% of countries do not have a legislation that explicitly protect girls’ right to education in case of pregnancy but 33% do have such provisions, which are sometimes very detailed and protective. Latin America and the Caribbean is the region with the most countries that protect explicitly their right to education, followed by Europe and North America and then Africa.

While in 2019, 8 countries were restricting the right to education of pregnant, parenting and married girls in their legislation, four countries in the African region have put an end to such ban, therefore leaving only four countries with an explicit ban. 

The following graphics represent the data of indicator 12 of Her Atlas. According to the methodology of HerAtlas , the legislation is considered as explicitly protecting the right to education of pregnant and parenting girls only if there is a provision mentioning expressly pregnancy, parenting and education. Guaranteeing the right to education without discrimination is not considered as an explicit protection for this indicator.

Right to education, child marriage and gender-based violence in schools

According to the Joint CEDAW General Recommendation / CRC General Comment , capable child below the age of 18 may be allowed to get married provided that the child is at least 16 years old and that such decisions are made by a judge based on legitimate exceptional grounds defined by law and on the evidence of maturity.

Worldwide, 17% of countries still allow marriage before the age 18 years old for girls. 44% allow it from 18 years old, but with exceptions before that age. In such cases, exceptions can for example require a parental consent only, or a judicial one but with a minimum age below 16, and an absolute minimum age is not always set. 34% of countries do set a minimum age of marriage at 18 for girls, with no exception or judicial exceptions only with an absolute minimum age set at 16 years old.

At the regional level, Europe and North America is the region with the fewest number of countries that allow marriage before 18 years old for girls and with the highest number of countries setting 18 as the minimum age without exceptions, or only judicial ones with an absolute minimum age set at 16.

Globally, the percentage of child marriage is higher in countries where education is neither compulsory nor free. The percentage of women aged 20 to 24 who were first married or in union before their 18 is more than halved in countries where education is compulsory for nine years or more and fee for 12 years or more in comparison to countries where education is neither compulsory nor free.

Regarding legal protection against gender-based violence and corporal punishment within education establishments, 14% of countries provide for a wide protection (protecting from corporal punishment and physical, psychological and sexual violence), 54% with a partial protection, and 29% do not provide protection, among those, some authorizes the use of corporal punishment in schools. At the regional level, Latin America and the Caribbean is the region with the most countries providing a wide protection, but also with the most countries that do not provide for protection.

Right to education, compulsory, and free education

Worldwide, 16% of countries still do not guarantee the right to education in their Constitution or laws. Among the 84% of countries that legally protect the right to education, 58% explicitly guarantee it without discrimination based on sex and/or gender.

At the regional level, it is in Asia Pacific that the highest percentage of countries not guaranteeing the right to education can be found, while it is in the Arab region that there is the highest percentage of countries legally protecting the right to education without discrimination. Finally, both the Arab region and the Latin America & Caribbean region have the highest percentage of countries explicitly guaranteeing the right to education without discrimination based on sex and/or gender.

Regarding compulsory and free pre-primary education, worldwide, 27% of countries guarantee it in their legislation while 19% legally guarantee free or compulsory pre-primary education. At the regional level, it is in the Latin America & Caribbean region that there is the highest percentage of countries legally guaranteeing compulsory and free pre-primary education, followed by the Europe & North America region.

At the global level, 31% of countries legally guarantee compulsory primary and secondary education for at least nine years and free education for at least 12 years, while 5% of countries do not guarantee neither compulsory nor free primary and secondary education. The others either guarantee compulsory or free primary and secondary education, or they do guarantee both, but the duration of compulsory education is less than nine years, or the duration of free education is less than 12 years. At the regional level, it is in the Europe & North American region that there is the highest percentage of countries legally guaranteeing compulsory and free primary and secondary education, for a duration of respectively at least nine and 12 years.

Out of school and enrolment rate compared to the legal protection of free and compulsory education

When pre-primary education is neither legally compulsory nor free, the out-of-school rate of girls of primary school age is higher than the out-of-school rate of boys of the same age. On the contrary, when pre-primary education is legally compulsory and free, the out-of-school rate of girls of primary school age is lower than the out-of-school rate of boys of primary school age. For both boys and girls, the out-of-school rate of children of primary school age is lower when pre-primary education is legally compulsory and free.

Similarly, the out-of-school rate for children, adolescents and youth of primary, lower secondary and upper secondary school age is divided by three when primary and secondary education is compulsory for at least nine years and free for at least twelve years, compared to the out-of-school rate when education is neither compulsory nor free. While the out-of-school rate of girls is higher than the one of boys when education is neither compulsory nor free, the out-of-school rate of boys is higher than the out-of-school rate of girls when education is compulsory for at least 9 years and free for at least 12 years.

Finally, the gross enrolment ratio (GER) for tertiary education is multiplied by 6 when primary and secondary education is compulsory for 9 years and free for 12 years, compared to the tertiary education GER when primary and secondary education is neither compulsory nor free. The GER of boys in tertiary education is the same than the GER of girls when primary and secondary education is neither compulsory nor free, but the GER of boys is lower than the GER of girls when primary and secondary education is compulsory for 9 years and free for 12 years.

More information

Related items

• Right to education
• Girls education
• Womens rights

More on this subject

Other recent news