Frank Adamson of Stanford University wrote a marvelous article that lays out the issues with enormous clarity and insight. To read the references and links, open the article.
The United Nations has identified “free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education” by 2030 as a goal for sustainable development. This goal reaffirms the right to education guaranteed by countries in multiple U.N. declarations over the last half-century.[i] Although these treaties reflect a general consensus that everyone has a right to education, most countries do not actually deliver on this promise. To address the issue, different countries are organizing their education systems based on contrasting values. Some countries have placed the responsibility for choosing schools on families, while others have delivered the right to education at a system-level, with the latter approach correlating with better national outcomes.
Instead of countries delivering on their U.N. treaty commitments to the right to education, some have proposed that parental choice should drive the education “marketplace.” This approach varies across countries. In countries in the global south such as India and Uganda, families can “choose” to send their children to “low fee” private schools, or else their children will likely not receive an education. In countries in the global north like Sweden and the U.S., school “choice” usually happens when governments give parents the option to leave public schools. However, in both cases, governments place the responsibility on the family to figure out the best option for their child instead of fulfilling their child’s right to a free, equitable, high quality education.
Even more problematic is the reality that school “choice” does not guarantee a better education, for a variety of reasons. One issue is that, when a charter school or low-fee private school does provide a good education, everyone wants to go there and there are not enough spots for every student. And that’s the best-case scenario. The more common problem is that schools of choice do not provide higher quality education. In addition, they often exclude certain types of harder and/or more expensive-to-each students – those with disabilities, discipline histories, lower socio-economic status – as well as racial and ethnic minorities and second-language learners. These students may have lower scores on the tests used to judge schools or they may require extra attention from teachers, incentivizing these schools to choose their students, instead of students being able to choose their schools.[ii]
The results are not surprising because these schools compete with each other instead of providing education to everyone. School choice systems operate under a market-based rationale. In this marketplace, schools depend on competition to get students to enroll. This sounds like a great idea—the companies (schools) that produce the best product (education) have the most customers (students), while those that don’t will go out of business (closing the school). But market-based approaches require schools to seek a competitive advantage that leads to their exclusionary approaches. And when these schools exclude the more “expensive” students, these students end up in overcrowded and underperforming schools that lack basic services, or, even worse, without the opportunity for an education at all.
Countries seeking to provide a free, equitable, quality education aren’t trying to create competitive advantage within their systems. Instead, they fulfill their “education as a human right” imperative at the system level by investing in teachers and infrastructure. Their public investments produce some of the highest outcomes on international assessments, with smaller differences between students, meaning the systems function more equitably. These countries, including Finland, Singapore, Canada, Cuba, and others, have signed at least some of the U.N. treaties that declare the right to education, have opted for investing in their public education systems instead of pursuing market-based approaches that lead to inequity, and continually deliver high quality education to their citizens. Instead of forcing parents to choose schools, or even be chosen by schools, countries employing market-based approaches would do well to shift their focus towards ensuring the educational rights of their citizens on a proven pathway to better outcomes.
The right to an equitable, free, public education should be the right of all Americans, regardless of students’ zip codes. America should be a model of equitability, but neither its public schools or privatized school reflect the will to provide equal opportunity to its citizenry. The funding systems of public schools, mostly based on property taxes, have resulted in disparities among public schools, and the privatized systems are even worse as they seek to exclude those with individual differences that make them more expensive to serve. Privatization has allowed students to be railroaded into market based charter schools while students’ right to a free public education have wrongly included charter chains. Despite parent and student protests, and little benefit to young people, this trend continues.
It is interesting that the article mentions Cuba as a country that provides a sound, equitable education to its people. Since the opening up of Cuba, American researchers have been able to get the FDA to approve research into Cuba’s lung cancer vaccine which has apparently helped many people with lung cancer. Cuba has been able to accomplish medical research despite its isolation and without all the “amazing benefits” of the market. Cuba has been able to innovate without the drive of the market and tons of private money behind the research, and their accomplishments reflect their commitment to strong public education.https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/11/cubas-lung-cancer-vaccine/505778/
“The right to an equitable, free, public education should be the right of all Americans, regardless of students’ zip codes.”
It already is as mandated by each state’s constitution.
Now the bugaboo comes in the process of providing said right when personal priorities, preferences and desires of one or a few overtake those of others. A serious problem no doubt, and one that distressingly seems to win out too often. Many times that “winning out” is a function of the lies and falsehoods perpetrated by the few against the will of the many.
The word ” Right” is incorrect. It is an obligation on the state to provide an education, whether it is free, paid for or home-schooled. You have a right to go to church.
I disagree. By the state mandating public education for all, it is a right as guaranteed by the constitution that authorizes that education.
And for a democratic society, it is a far greater, more important right than the right to “go to church” where many falsehoods are kept, perpetuated and disseminated.
It behooves a nation or a society to make something the right of its members when that nation or society determines that doing so is essential to its own survival. Education is just such a right.
The USA is a sovereign nation. We have not ratified any UN treaty obligating our nation to provide education. We do NOT take dictates from the UN, nor any international organization, with respect to education.
There is no “right” to education explicitly stated in the US constitution. I have read the constitution, front to back, and I cannot lay my finger on any specified right to education.
The several states, have chosen to set up systems of public education (tax-supported, but not free).
Every state has a constitution guaranteeing the right to a “free and efficient education” or words to that effect. It seems, Charles, that you do not begin to understand the need or value of education. Read T. Jefferson. Our Founding Fathers were such deep believers in the importance of education that they assumed that the need for educating the public was well understood, without putting a requirement in the Constitution.
I have not read all 50 state constitutions. ( nor the District of Columbia, nor the territories). But, I am on solid ground that the federal constitution has no specified nor implicit requirement for a tax-supported education. In 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez
that there is no fundamental right to education in the Constitution of the United States.
see
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-1332
I am 100% in favor of the states providing education. If the states choose to provide in their constitutions, or by legislation, then that is just as well.
Education is, rightly, a state and municipal responsibility. All the more reason, why the feds should abolish the Dept of Education, and return the responsibility where it belongs.
“The several states, have chosen to set up systems of public education (tax-supported, but not free).”
You need to start reading the states’ constitutions.
As Diane stated, an education is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Not a federally guaranteed one but a state guaranteed one.
Tis really that plain and simple.
This is an excellent article about: What I Send My Children to Public Schools. The benefits of public schools far outweigh charter schools and vouchers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-niles/public-schools_b_1002466.html
I know adults who attended private and private schools. Generally speaking, I have found that those who attended public schools are more well-rounded human beings than those who ONLY attended private schools. WHY?
Those who attended public schools:
Embrace diversity more easily than those who only attended private schools and they are able to orchestrate difficult situations with more grace;
Know that they are NOT the smartest and that there are different kinds of intelligence;
Are more compassionate towards others and their plights;
Have friends who accept other cultures different from their own;
Are less materialistic;
Are more willing to admit that they are not perfect;
Are more respectful.
The above 7 points are just off the top of my head. I am sure there are more.
Public school teachers, know the benefits of public school. Please explain something to me, like I am a two-year old. If public schools are so fantastic, why do so many public school teachers, send their own kids to private schools?
see
http://educationnext.org/teachers-more-likely-to-use-private-schools-for-their-own-kids/
http://humanevents.com/2013/10/17/where-do-public-school-teachers-send-their-own-kids/
Charles, my recommendation is that you find sources that are not from the journals that hate public education and want teachers to work for peanuts. I don’t believe either the far-fringe-right “Human Events” or the efficiency-minded rightwing “Education Next.” It is necessary in a discussion to find reputable nonpartisan sources. You have not.
Charles: I was schooled until 8th grade at a small rural unit school, prepped at a strong college prep school, received degrees from state universities, and have taught in both public and private schools.
All schools offer some kids something. The important thing is finding the right fit for your kid. We have our kid in a public school but not the one where we teach, not because we think the one where we teach is inferior, but because she needs her space, not ours. So many variables go into the decision of where you educate your kid that it is wrong to draw conclusions based on where any group sends their child.
Our conclusions about public education should take into account all the parents, communities, students, and social structures that depend on them. My father, born in 1912, had a simplistic mode of thought on the subject: good soil makes good schools, churches, and communities. This is obviously a throwback to an era that was slipping away even as he was holding on to the belief. He was a farmer, and soil was everything. But metaphorically, he was correct. Schools are really symptomatic more than they are causative. Good communities will naturally have good schools. Stable economies produce good communities, good families, and good schools. It really is simple.
“I can only say that I view [education] as the most important subject which we as a people can be engaged in. That every man may receive at least, a moderate education, and thereby be enabled to read the histories of his own and other countries, by which he may duly appreciate the value of our free institutions, appears to be an object of vital importance, even on this account alone, to say nothing of the advantages and satisfaction to be derived from all being able to read the scriptures and other works, both of a religious and moral nature, for themselves. For my part, I desire to see the time when education, and by its means, morality, sobriety, enterprise and industry, shall become much more general than at present, and should be gratified to have it in my power to contribute something to the advancement of any measure which might have a tendency to accelerate the happy period.
–Abraham Lincoln, March 9, 1832
To Charles:
Please remember that your children and all rich children CANNOT be famous surgeons who will care for your old age and sickness.
Public education is the source to pull together all talented professionals of all trades and fields in STEM, Liberal Arts, Legal, Accounting… from services sectors to leadership sectors.
Being considerate members in a society, we all contribute to support and sustain our human race through paying tax for common good, like Public Education, hospitals, infrastructures…
Whenever you fly, drive, or cruise, please remember that you cannot survive and your life will not be comfortable without hairdressers, cooks, plumbers, electricians, nail technicians, tailors and cleaners who are from public schools. Back2basic
I live in a community in which many, many people choose private or charter schools. They want an exclusive crowd. You probably already know that, Charles.
If you dislike the education next, and/or the human events source, then select one of your own. see
https://www.google.com/#q=why+do+public+school+teachers+send+their+children+to+private+schools&start=10&spf=393
Many different sources from all sides of the political spectrum basically say the same thing. A higher percentage of public school teachers, send their children to private schools, than the general population.
This data indicates to me, that public school teachers, know the public schools, and they also know that their children will get a superior education in a private school.
Now will someone answer my question: Why do so many public school teachers, send their children to private schools?
Bull-pucky.
This has been a hoary standby of the choice crowd since the early 1990s. Do you really think that public school teachers, whose income averages about $50,000 a year (and in some states, far less) can afford to send their own children to private schools that cost half their income.
Charles,
In case you forgot, the US is the most powerful nation in the world. How was that cultural, economic, and military power built? By a public that was educated in public schools–90% of them. Why do you disparage our nation and our people by ridiculing our schools?
see this story:
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/03/why-im-a-public-school-teacher-but-a-private-school-parent/386797/
And yes, I know that some (not all) public school teachers can afford to send their children to private/parochial schools. The San Luis Obispo school in this story charges between 3,000-7,000 dollars, and has scholarships and tuition discounts.
The fact is, that the percentage of public school teachers who send their own children to private/parochial schools is higher than the general public.
And I can guarantee you, that where and when vouchers/choice plans are available, more public school teachers will send their children to non-public schools.
Charles,
You don’t know what you are talking about.
Here’s a link to the 2004 report showing that in more than 40 American cities, a higher % of urban public school teachers sent their children to private or parochial schools, than the overall population. This is a replication of the report done in the 1990’s that found a similar result.
Click to access Fwd-1.1_7.pdf
For me this is not an argument for vouchers. But I think we should have public school choice with public schools open to all, no admissions tests.
Joe,
I agree with you. But with one caveat: I do not consider charter schools to be public schools when they are part of corporate chains, when they operate for-profit, when their leader is not an educator, when their principal is paid more than District principals, when they exclude students because of their disabilities or their English language mastery, when they are non-union even though the rest of the district teachers are in a union. If charter schools operate with district approval and meet the above conditions, I am with you.
Q Why do you disparage our nation and our people by ridiculing our schools? END Q
If you think that I am disparaging our nation, you are wrong. I have lived in a communist dictatorship, and an Islamic kingdom. I am a veteran. I served for ten years in Iraq/Afghanistan on military projects. I am not disparaging our nation. The USA has given citizenship to my wife. You are stepping on some thin ice, here.
I am not ridiculing public schools. I have nothing but praise for the Fairfax county public schools, they are some of the finest in the nation. The high school down the road from me, is one of the ten best in the USA.
A person can be for school choice, AND for public schools, simultaneously. I am certain that if a voucher program was initiated here in Fairfax, that the office would get virtually no takers. Other than some individuals who would choose Islamic or Roman Catholic schools, most parents here in Fairfax are perfectly satisfied.
Hmm, the vast majority of public school teachers I know send their children to the public schools. The few that don’t almost always do so for religious reasons. Any problem with that??
Duane, as I think you know, our 3 children all attended St Paul Public Schools, k-12. However, research by Denis Doyle and others found in two studies using US Census data, that a higher % of urban public school teachers than average sent their own youngsters to private or parochial schools, in more than 40 American cities.
Ed Week reported this in 1995. Here’s a link to the 2004 report.
Click to access Fwd-1.1_7.pdf
For me, this is startling but it’s still not an argument for vouchers.
But I do believe in and have worked for more than 40 years to help expand public school choice – by which I mean schools open to all, no entrance requirements. So for example, I have worked against creation of school choice programs such as the one operating in NYC, in which some district schools are allowed to use admissions tests to screen out students,
Well now, there’s the problem, Chuck. You think you can support public schools and privatization at the same time. You can’t. It’s one or the other. You can’t take funding from public schools to give to exclusive schools and call that equitable. You just can’t have it both ways.
Q May 10, 2017 at 7:18 pm
Well now, there’s the problem, Chuck. You think you can support public schools and privatization at the same time. You can’t. It’s one or the other. You can’t take funding from public schools to give to exclusive schools and call that equitable. You just can’t have it both ways.
END Q
I disagree. A person can support public schools, and support school choice simultaneously. What opponents of school choice/vouchers seem to overlook, is that not all parents will exercise the option to pull their children out of publicly-operated schools. There are many fine public schools in the USA (I live near one of the ten best high schools in the USA).
It is not about “taking funding from public schools”. It is about having the funding follow the child, and not the institution. When a child leaves a public school, when their family is transferred across the country, the public school loses the per-capita funding. When a child leaves a public school, for a private school, the public school will lose the per-capita funding just the same.
In the states which have school choice, public schools have not disappeared, they have down-sized.
Q May 9, 2017 at 9:26 pm
I live in a community in which many, many people choose private or charter schools. They want an exclusive crowd. You probably already know that, Charles.
END Q
Karen, it sounds like your community has people with sufficient means to pay school taxes, and also pay the costs of alternate schools.
I am not as cynical as you are. I believe that most of these parents, want their children to have a quality education, and it is obviously not available at the local public schools. Some may be motivated by racism, some may wish their children to have a religiously-based education. I do not know.
Is it fair, for only wealthy people to have school choice? Why not give parents, further down on the economic ladder, similar choices?
Charles,
If you want poor people to have choices like rich people, then the vouchers for poor children should be $40,000 each, not $5-6,000.
Q Do you really think that public school teachers, whose income averages about $50,000 a year (and in some states, far less) can afford to send their own children to private schools that cost half their income. END Q
I can do the math. Of course, parents who earn $50k per year, cannot afford to send their children to schools with a tuition of $25k per year. That is absurd.
BUT- Many (NOT ALL) public school teachers earn a wage, that enables them to afford private school tuition. Many (NOT ALL) public school teachers are married, and/or have additional income from another source, besides their teacher salaries.
There are private/parochial schools which charge modest tuition, that some (NOT ALL) public schools teachers can afford. (The California school in the article charges $3k – $9K per year). Some (NOT ALL) private schools have full or partial scholarship programs.
The data is absolutely reliable. Nationally, the percentage of public school teachers, who send their children to private/parochial schools, is higher than the general population. I can direct you to websites, which show this fact clearly.
Now, will someone answer my original question: If public schools are so fantastic, why do so many public school teachers, send their children to private/parochial schools?
Q If you want poor people to have choices like rich people, then the vouchers for poor children should be $40,000 each, not $5-6,000. END Q
I am not saying that all people, including poor people should be given a voucher of the amount you suggest. Choice/voucher supporters (including myself) are saying, that the voucher should be equivalent to what the public school is already receiving.
For example: If a school district is spending $9,000 per child per year on a child to go to public school, then the family should have the option of receiving a voucher in the amount of $9,000. The family would then have the option of redeeming the voucher at a school of their choice (or use the funds for home-schooling, or transportation, or other legitimate educational expenditure).
Opponents of school choice, often put up “bogus” objections. For example:
The voucher cannot meet the expenses of a high-cost prep school like Choate or Andover.
There are not enough alternate schools available in the community.
There are no alternate schools for children in rural communities.
All parents who choose alternate schooling, are racist bigots.
Vouchers cause “elitism”
Vouchers will “destroy” public education
The public school is the “anchor” of the community.
Public schools will be left with all of the handicapped, special-needs, and ELL children.
Private/parochial school teachers are not as qualified as public school teachers.
and on and on.
Why cannot the opponents of school choice/vouchers just “man up”, and state the real reasons for keeping American children in a single-payer government school system?
It is because they are protecting their union jobs! The NEA is the largest union in the USA. The NEA knows that alternate schools can function without unionized teachers (and unionized support/administrative personnel). And the left wants to keep children in poor-quality schools, so that they will not be able to receive a quality education, and they will remain on welfare, and continue to vote democratic.
Charles, I agree that we should offer public school choice options, via district & chartered public schools. I agree that high students also should have the option to spend part or full time taking courses on college campuses or via the internet, with state funds following, paying tuition, lab and book fees. All these options exist in Minnesota and to some extent in Washington State, though the Post Secondary Option is not as comprehensive as it is in Mn.
You and I do not agree about vouchers. But that is another discussion.
I also think there are some people on the political left who oppose what I describe above, but not because they want to keep families on welfare. I think there is massive resistance on the part of some people who see themselves as liberals or progressives to the idea that education can have a huge positive impact on students who currently are in low income families.
I think there is both experience and evidence that some schools serving predominantly low income students are helping such youngsters not only graduate from high school but also graduate from some form of college or university, thus increasing their life opportunities.
Education does not all the problems of those from low income families. But the most effective public schools, district or chartered, have huge positive impacts.
@Joseph Nathan: We agree on many topics. One of my major problem with (many) public schools, is that not enough attention and resources are directed at the gifted/talented children. That is why I have long advocated, the establishment of residence preparatory schools, for our gifted/talented students.
One fine example ,is the Illinois Math and Science Academy. see
https://www.imsa.edu/
I believe it is a solid investment in our nation, to pull the brightest kids out of public schools, and get them into an environment where their “special needs” can be met. Our nation spends extra funds on the education of the disabled, blind, retarded, etc. Why not make similar investments on the children on the other side of that spectrum?
Not all public schools in our nation’s capital are disasters, one of the finest is Benjamin Banneker. See
http://www.benjaminbanneker.org/
Parents CHOOSE to send their children to this excellent public school!
Charles, we agree that it’s valuable to offer a variety of choices. I do not think public K-12 schools should be allowed to have admission tests. That includes that magnet schools in NYC and other cities so often defended here, as well as statewide schools of the kind you mentioned, and some charters that apparently have created admissions tests. Most state charter laws prohibit such tests, and I agree with those laws (helped write some of them).
Schools are pretty much what we decide they are….like when Gulen thinks he needs something to settle political conflicts in Turkey:
Gulen was getting more powerful than Obama, Arne Duncan, and Bill Gates thought he should be, so they quietly hired a hit man….General Flynn….to have him sent back to Turkey and shot by Erdogan. Since it did not happen….Obama might have rethought the idea…..there should be no problems for Gulen’s sizable collection of money generating schools. With teachers being counselled to donate 40% of their salaries back to the schools….the finances are in reasonably good shape. Not sure how much tax money they rack up
Turkey Cheered by Words of Michael Flynn, Trump’s Security Adviser
By ROD NORDLANDNOV. 19, 2016
ISTANBUL — Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the designated national security adviser for the incoming Trump administration, once wrote on Twitter that it was “rational” to fear Muslims, but that does not seem likely to cause him any grief with Turkey’s government, even though it is led by a religiously conservative Muslim, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Ankara has paid far more attention to General Flynn’s full-throated support for Mr. Erdogan’s government, and especially its wish to extradite the Islamic scholar Fethullah Gulen from his sanctuary in the Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania.
General Flynn wrote an article published in The Hill on Election Day calling on the United States to be more sympathetic to the concerns of Turkey, a NATO ally, and embracing Mr. Erdogan’s position that Mr. Gulen is an extremist who was behind the failed July coup against his government.
Mr. Gulen and his supporters deny that, and depict him as a moderate more concerned with building thousands of schools than with toppling Turkey’s government. Mr. Gulen was once an ally of Mr. Erdogan, but they had a falling out. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/worl … .html?_r=0
OK. I admit…..this is a bit tongue in cheek….but there is something suspicious about none of the news reports ever mentioning Gulen in relation to Flynn….education stuff is not newsworthy….even when it is being used to fund government conflicts in other countries.
By Sharon Higgins
The largest charter school network in the United States is operated by people in and associated with the Gulen Movement (GM), a secretive and controversial Turkish religious sect. With 135 schools enrolling more than 45,000 students, this network is substantially larger than KIPP, the well-known charter management organization with only 109 schools. A lack of awareness about this situation persists despite it being addressed in a national paper and in articles about Gulen charter schools in Utah (also here), Arizona, (also here), Illinois, Tennessee, Pennsylvania (also here), Indiana, Oklahoma (and here), Texas (also here), Arkansas, Louisiana (also here), New Jersey, Georgia, and North Carolina. It was also reported that the FBI and the Departments of Labor and Education are investigating practices at these schools.
The concerns raised about the charter schools in the GM network have related to questionable admissions practices; the channeling of school funds to close associates; abuse of contractors; participation in biased, GM-created competitions; incidents of bribing; using the schools to generate political connections; science fair projects being done by teachers; unfair hiring and termination practices; and more. Still, authorizers continue to approve charter applications, ill-informed parents continue to use them, and taxpayers keep funding the schools – all without much discussion.
The Gulen Movement originated in Turkey in the late 1960s and has become increasingly powerful. Its members are followers of Fethullah Gulen (b. 1941) a self-exiled Turkish preacher who has been living on a secluded compound in rural Pennsylvania since 1998. Members call themselves hizmet, meaning “volunteer services” movement. The GM conducts four primary activities around the world: a media empire, business organizations, an enormous number of Turkish culture-promoting and interfaith dialog organizations, and a network of schools in over 100 countries, a large portion of which are U.S. charter schools.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/an … 33cdbb8452
links did not work…here are the originals…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/largest-charter-network-in-us-schools-tied-to-turkey/2012/03/23/gIQAoaFzcS_blog.html?utm_term=.ba5aa680ed45
The article is an argument for state investments in equitable education, but ito my mind, the case is still too dependent on a limited definition of “outcomes.” Better outcomes are defined by performance on international assessments.
e.g., “Their public investments produce some of the highest outcomes on international assessments, with smaller differences between students, meaning the systems function more equitably.”
I feel that the proper place for this is not so much in the word “right” as it is in the phrase right to access. A right to access places the responsibility on the state to provide all with equal access to learning, especially at a young age. As children get older, the right to refuse access must be recognized. Requiring students to attend school well into their teens might damage some children who are not desirous of traditional education. Opportunity can be created by a state which sees the worth in providing the training needed for new technical fields or making available humanities classes for those interested.
Similarly, the right to equal treatment before the law is supported by a well funded law enforcement organization including police, judiciary, and similar services. Access to these services provide the right. School is sort of like these services.
This is an excellent article. It’s shameful that the United States would have to strive to reach a level set by the UN. We used to set the standard in so many things. This obsession with competition is destroying our public schools. I see it in Los Angeles every day, even by our so called allies. No one in authority is willing to say that parental choice is not the end all be all.
While citing the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the author seems to have missed what it says about education. All 3 points seem relevant.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html