Page 36 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 3-4: Convention on the Rights of the Child: Educational Opportunities and Social Justice, eds. Zdenko Kodelja and Urška Štremfel
P. 36
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 3–4
negative wording (“No person shall be denied the right to education”).
The holders of the right to education guaranteed in Article 2 of Protocol
1 are children as well as any person regardless of age who wishes to benefit
from the right to education. States should ensure that everyone has access
to education, yet national regulations related to primary education vary.
For example, differences may emerge in the age until education is compul-
sory or whether home-schooling is (dis)allowed. The second sentence of
Article 2 builds on a state’s positive obligation to respect the religious and
philosophical convictions of the parents: “In the exercise of any functions
which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall
respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in con-
formity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”; here, the
word “convictions” should not be equated with “opinion” or “idea” as that
indicates a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
Based on the above, states should take religious and philosophical
pluralism into account while planning the educational curriculum. The
conveyance of religious and philosophical content must be objective, crit-
ical and plural in manner (Grabenwarter, 2014, p. 398; Novak, 2004, p.
191; also see Case Folgero and Others v. Norway). Only in this case will no
violation of parental care or of parents’ convictions be recognised. In the
case Dojan v. Germany, the parents requested that their children to be ex-
empted from sex education as they belonged to the Christian Evangelical
Baptist Church and held strong moral beliefs as part of their religious
faith. The ECtHR observed the sex-education classes at issue aimed at
the neutral transmission of knowledge regarding procreation, contracep-
tion, pregnancy and childbirth following underlying legal provisions and
the ensuing guidelines and the curriculum, all based on current scien-
tific and educational standards. In the case AR and LR v. Switzerland,
the ECtHR again dealt with the issue of sex education. The ECtHR
stressed that one aim of sex education is to prevent sexual violence and
exploitation, which pose a genuine threat to the physical and mental
health of children and against which children of all ages must be pro-
tected. Therefore, sex education did not affect the right to parental ed-
ucation unless it pursued an aim of indoctrination which could be
viewed as not respecting the religious and philosophical convictions of
the parents (AR and LR v. Switzerland). Consequently, sex education
is declared as needed to ensure the child’s best interest and also includ-
ed in the state school curriculums in Slovenia. But it must pursue legit-
imate aims (e.g. to protect children from sexual violence and offences)
and be objective, pluralistic and critical.
34
negative wording (“No person shall be denied the right to education”).
The holders of the right to education guaranteed in Article 2 of Protocol
1 are children as well as any person regardless of age who wishes to benefit
from the right to education. States should ensure that everyone has access
to education, yet national regulations related to primary education vary.
For example, differences may emerge in the age until education is compul-
sory or whether home-schooling is (dis)allowed. The second sentence of
Article 2 builds on a state’s positive obligation to respect the religious and
philosophical convictions of the parents: “In the exercise of any functions
which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall
respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in con-
formity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”; here, the
word “convictions” should not be equated with “opinion” or “idea” as that
indicates a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
Based on the above, states should take religious and philosophical
pluralism into account while planning the educational curriculum. The
conveyance of religious and philosophical content must be objective, crit-
ical and plural in manner (Grabenwarter, 2014, p. 398; Novak, 2004, p.
191; also see Case Folgero and Others v. Norway). Only in this case will no
violation of parental care or of parents’ convictions be recognised. In the
case Dojan v. Germany, the parents requested that their children to be ex-
empted from sex education as they belonged to the Christian Evangelical
Baptist Church and held strong moral beliefs as part of their religious
faith. The ECtHR observed the sex-education classes at issue aimed at
the neutral transmission of knowledge regarding procreation, contracep-
tion, pregnancy and childbirth following underlying legal provisions and
the ensuing guidelines and the curriculum, all based on current scien-
tific and educational standards. In the case AR and LR v. Switzerland,
the ECtHR again dealt with the issue of sex education. The ECtHR
stressed that one aim of sex education is to prevent sexual violence and
exploitation, which pose a genuine threat to the physical and mental
health of children and against which children of all ages must be pro-
tected. Therefore, sex education did not affect the right to parental ed-
ucation unless it pursued an aim of indoctrination which could be
viewed as not respecting the religious and philosophical convictions of
the parents (AR and LR v. Switzerland). Consequently, sex education
is declared as needed to ensure the child’s best interest and also includ-
ed in the state school curriculums in Slovenia. But it must pursue legit-
imate aims (e.g. to protect children from sexual violence and offences)
and be objective, pluralistic and critical.
34
