Classical Liberalism 101: Take 3 -- What is Government's Role in Education?

This next installment of Classical Liberalism 101 dissects the sticky questions surrounding the state's role in education, dealing in particular with the Bulgarian government's constitution, but also allowing for universal application of certain classical liberal ideals. The author, btw, is a member (as am I) of the БЛО (Bulgarian Libertarian Society) and has been home-schooling his own kids their whole lives, so he has some idea what he is talking about, I suppose :) Translated by @peter.tsukev, edited by Yours Truly.

---

---

Is Education in Bulgaria Obligatory?

by Yavor Ganchev

The majority of people would probably choose to answer the above question in the affirmative, with some even citing Article 53 (2) of the Bulgarian Constitution:

“School instruction until the age of 16 is compulsory.” Most people, however, do not even notice that the terminology used is not education, but school instruction. For most people — and certainly for all those who work in or for the government — school instruction and education are the same animal. However, they are not the same in reality — and not even because school instruction does not result in education, but rather because they are different categories of terms.

Education, unlike school instruction, is a basic human right. The term basic human right means that one has that right solely by virtue of being human, and not because it is has been granted them by anybody else, not even the state. Thus, it is widely agreed upon that the state cannot provide human rights — it can only choose to provide protection for those rights (or not).

The right to education is mentioned in the preceding paragraph of the same Article 53: (1) (“Everyone has the right to education.”) However, it does not provide any definition as to what having the right to education actually means. To find the answer, one must turn to a different source …

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

“Everyone has the right to education. […] Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. […] Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” (Article 26)

The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, again, makes use of these very same elements:

“[…] The State Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents […] to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities.”

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further reaffirms this freedom of the parents in the wider context of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion:

“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. […] The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents […] to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.” (Article 18)

---

Freedom of Choice in Education

These conventions have been ratified virtually worldwide. In addition, Bulgaria is a signatory of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, whose Article 2 states: “No person shall be denied the right to education. 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 conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

These texts bear the power of law in The Republic of Bulgaria, according to Article 5 (4) of the Constitution: “International treaties, ratified constitutionally, promulgated and implemented in the Republic of Bulgaria, are part of the internal legal system of the country. They outweigh any norms of internal legislation that contradict them.” Parental rights to make decisions about the education of their children are also reaffirmed by Article 47 (1): “The upbringing of children until they are of legal age is their right and is the responsibility of their parents and will be supported by the state.”

---

So, this is what the Constitution is telling us so far:

• Education is a basic right — it does not come from the state, but exists for every human being simply by virtue of being human. Education should be aimed at fully developing the personality and at strengthening respect for human rights;

• Everybody has the right to decide what to study. The decision as to the type of education is the responsibility (right and obligation) of the parents; and

• The State is bound to honor (ratify and protect) the freedom of the parents and to support them in carrying out their responsibilities.

---

The State is Bound to Respect Freedom of Choice

Freedom of education does not only concern parents and children — it also applies to all teachers and entrepreneurs who create educational services. This concept is very clearly put forth in Article 23: “The state creates the conditions for the free development of science, education, and the arts, and supports them.” This passage unequivocally binds the state to respect the freedom of education and places the state in the subjugated position of a supporting entity. Furthermore, placing education along with the arts and science is very revealing. If the Minister of Culture is justified in declaring who can sing which songs and what books can be published, then the Minister of Education is justified in decreeing what material will be studied and what type of educational services the schools will offer.

---

Conclusion

So does compulsory school instruction contradict freedom of education? Not at all. Law is a unified and coordinated system. There is no way that one text from the Constitution can contradict another, or override it. On the contrary, when speaking of human rights, the idea of their interdependence and interconnection (their unification) comes to the forefront. The extent to which school instruction respects the freedom to education (i.e., the right of parents to make decisions on behalf of their children) corresponds to the extent that parents are obligated to provide education to their children. If we look at Article 47, we can clearly see that the obligation to raise our children stems from the right to do so. Therefore, there can be no obligation without the prior existence of a ratified and respected right.

Education is a right, so it cannot be obligatory. Thus, no one can make anyone learn anything by force. But providing education is the obligation of the parents. They can fulfill this responsibility only if their right to make decisions about the education of their offspring is respected — and, in many cases, if they are supported by the state in doing so. Only in this sense can one say, with certain reservations, that “education is compulsory.”

However, education is distinct from compulsory school instruction, as outlined in the Constitution.

Educational institutions are defined by those who study there. For compulsory school instruction to make sense, the freedom (or right) to education must be guaranteed. Thus, the school (whether state-run, municipal, or private) must be defined by those who study and work in it: students, teachers, and parents. Nowhere in the Constitution is it specified what school means, nor is any privilege to decide granted to the state, nor is such a privilege implicitly understood — because doing so would be a violation of the right of parents to make education-related decisions and of the free development of education.

Nevertheless, we take it for granted that the state defines educational services — after all, it has a de facto monopoly on this service! Its monopoly extends to private schools as well, insofar as it is required of them to provide the same level of instruction as state schools. This state of affairs, a shameful residue of our totalitarian past, is in sharp contrast with fundamental law, as well as with the tendencies in the majority of countries whose educational systems we look up to. In one imaginable future, the state will provide educational services only by exception — in cases in which the parents or the community cannot care for their children’s education. Doing so would not mean the withdrawal of the state from education, but only its withdrawal from its management role, while still retaining its responsibility to provide support.

Finally, the support which the state owes to the educational system and parents should be unconditional, regardless of the choice the parents have made for their children’s education. Again, doing so would not mean withdrawing state control from all types of schools (Article 53 (6)) or a lack of state requirements (Article 53 (5)) — instead, it would mean that this control may not extend to the academic autonomy of the parents or the schools and that state requirements may not impinge on educational freedom.

On the contrary, control and requirements must be aimed at protecting the right to education — for example, cases in which we see the so-called “horizontal” violation of the law, when parents deprive their children of education or exercise their own rights in violation of the human rights of their own children or of others. However, for the state to control violations of the right to education, it must first guarantee the right to (or freedom of) education itself.

Original in Bulgarian: https://ekipbg.com/zadaljitelno-obrazovanie/