The court determined that legislation proposed by the state to compel all children to attend public schools would interfer with the liberty of parents and guardians to choose a school for their children. Read More

The case emphasised that complying with due process is imperative when proposing constitutional amendments that would impact public funding of education, and which may make it possible to transfer public funds into private educational institutions. Such proposed amendments must be accurately communicated to the voters and explicitly formed in the documents. Transfer of public funds into private educational institutions was considered to be an important decision that cannot be taken without taking all the system of democracy into account. Read More

This case reiterates principles of international human rights law which recognize states as the sole duty bearers in the realisation of the right to education. The obligation on private actors in education is to meet the standards set by the state to provide quality education. Read More

The Court clarified that in a voucher system offering participants a true choice of schools to attend including religious, non-religious and public schools, the preference for religious schools in a context where most of private schools are religious, cannot be considered an endorsement of such schools. The choice made by parents was distinguished from the state’s endorsement of religious private schools. Read More

The decision in this case illuminates the extent of the state’s responsibility of provision of free education. Parents’ freedom to choose to send their children to private school was upheld but clarification was made on the implications of such choice - public funds could not be set aside to fund private education. Read More

The court upheld the right to free public education and the right to equal protection under the law. This judgement supports the use of public funding to subsidise private schools while cautioning that this should only be done in extraordinary situations where no alternative is available. Further, the court in this case permits states to reasonably regulate and cap the amount of public funding going into private schools. Read More

This case clarified that under international human rights law there is no obligation on the state to fund private schools. The provision of resources to public schools only does not amount to a violation of the right to education or discrimination against children in private schools. The distinction is acceptable as it seeks to achieve a legitimate aim: the progressive realisation of the right to education for all children. Read More

The court affirmed that while private schools may operate, there is no obligation to the state to provide assistance to private schools equivalent to the assistance provided to public schools. Further, where there is a constitutional provision prohibiting financial support to students in private schools that discriminate on the basis of race, the state could not provide resources (in this case textbooks) to private schools that discriminate on the basis of race. Read More

The case upholds education as a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India and supports the fact that the state must not discriminate against learners regardless of circumstances such as low income. The Court emphasized that the State must ensure that the conditions of entry into institutions of learning are designed to promote equity and equality for all learners. The Court further stated that private institutions are agents of the State in the provision of education and therefore have a duty to ensure equal access to, and non-discrimination in the delivery of, higher education. Read More

The Constitutional Court of South Africa held that an eviction order obtained by an owner of private land on which a public school was located could not be enforced where it would impact students’ right to basic education and the best interests of the child under the South African Constitution. The court was clear that the right to basic education is an immediately realizable right and under the South African Constitution non-State actors have a negative obligation to refrain from acts that would infringe on the right to education. Read More

This case confirms the State’s obligation to protect the right to education, including by preventing abuse by private actors. The State has a duty to ensure quality of education and training, and may close institutions that do not comply with the basic requirements and minimum standards as required by the law, provided that the State complies with due process requirements. Read More

This case illustrates the obligations of the state to protect the right to education when it is being delivered by private actors. It also upholds the responsibility of private actors to respect human rights, particularly the rights to equality and non-discrimination, and adhere to minimum educational standards established by the state. This case also upholds the rights of minority groups to establish their schools and protect their culture by determining that the school population quotas could not be enforced in private minority schools. Read More

The case clarifies the limited circumstances under which a state may reimburse costs for private education: where public institutions may lack the requisite reasonable accommodation making it necessary for the learners to enroll in private schools. Read More

This case illustrates the importance of adequate infrastructure for the enjoyment of the right to quality education. Education must be administered in a clean and safe environment for the right to education to be properly realized. In addition, this case reinforces the government’s role in monitoring private actors who provide public services and ensuring their compliance with national minimum standards. Read More

This case is important as it affirms the importance of the requirement that private actors involved in education provision should conform to the minimum educational standards as laid down and approved by the State, and the authority of the State to take effective measures to enforce minimum standards. This position is reflected in the Abidjan Principles under Overarching Principles 3 and 4. Read More

This case overturned the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine from the Plessy decision, and helped lead to desegregation of schools throughout United States of America. The judges in this case upheld the right of everyone to attend a public school on equal terms, as envisioned in Overarching Principle 2. This case affirmed the right to equality and non-discrimination in public education (aligned with Guiding Principles 23 and 24) and is also significant for directing the State to take steps to eradicate the discrimination as echoed in Guiding Principles 26 and 27. Read More

This case is important because it affirms that the State cannot divest its roles to private actors when it enters into public private partnerships. As affirmed in Guiding Principles 50 and 51, the State still retains its obligations to protect the right to education by regulating and monitoring private actors they are in partnership with. This case also significant as it demonstrates that public private partnerships in education should not infringe on the rights to equality, non-discrimination, and quality education. Read More

This case confirms the role of the State to take measures to enforce regulation to ensure effective realisation of the right to education where private actors are involved, in accordance with the provisions under Overarching Principle 3 and 4 of the Abidjan Principles. The court affirmed that the State may close institutions that do not comply with formulated requirements (Guiding Principle 60). This case is also significant because it considers the interest of the pupils in relation to orders made, as well as the liberty of the parents to choose an educational institution for their children. Read More

This ruling affirms the right to free and compulsory basic education and clarifies that basic education should truly be free and no hidden, illegal costs should be charged in public schools. Read More