Human Rights Education

The Right to Education Itself

The anchor · available, accessible, acceptable, adaptable

Practised · resource not yet written

The 4-A scheme developed by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to education, and affirmed in General Comment 13, sets out what states owe: that education exists, that people can reach it, that its form and content are acceptable to those receiving it, and that it adapts to their circumstances. Read as a design framework it gives learning design a vocabulary drawn from international law for questions it already asks, and connects each to an established obligation.

Grounding. 4-A scheme (Tomaševski); CESCR General Comment 13; UDHR Article 26; ICESCR Article 13; CRC Articles 28–29; CRPD Article 24

Sources

• Reference 1: Tomaševski, K. (2001). Human Rights Obligations: Making Education Available, Accessible, Acceptable and Adaptable. Right to Education Primers No. 3. Novum Grafiska, Gothenburg — the source of the 4-A scheme.
• Reference 2: UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1999). General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education (Article 13 of the Covenant). E/C.12/1999/10.
• Reference 3: United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• Reference 4: United Nations (1966). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 13.
• Reference 5: United Nations (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Articles 28 and 29.
• Reference 6: United Nations (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Selection, Identification and the Right to Education — Rights · 2 shared sources
• Models of Human Rights Education — Rights, Policy
• Rights That Can Be Used, Not Only Known — Rights
• Rights Education Inside the Duty-Bearing Institution — Rights, Policy
• Teaching About Serious Harm — Rights

Connected contributions

• Models of Human Rights Education
• Rights That Can Be Used, Not Only Known

Where this work leads

• Human Rights Education, on the Human Rights Education page
• International and Regional Disability Rights Instruments, on the Accessibility page
• The Duty to Accommodate in Learning Design, on the Accessibility page
• Equity-Centered Learning Design, on the Universal Design for Learning page

Models of Human Rights Education

Awareness, accountability, transformation — and choosing between them

Practised · resource not yet written

Three widely used models describe what a human rights education programme is actually for: building shared values and awareness, equipping professionals to meet obligations they already hold, and supporting people affected by rights violations to act. Each implies different learners, content and evidence of success. Identifying which model a request belongs to, early, is what allows a programme to be designed and evaluated coherently.

Grounding. Models of human rights education (Tibbitts); ideology, location and approaches (Bajaj); World Programme for Human Rights Education

Sources

• Reference 7: Tibbitts, F. (2002). “Understanding What We Do: Emerging Models for Human Rights Education.” International Review of Education, 48(3–4), 159–171.
• Reference 8: Bajaj, M. (2011). “Human Rights Education: Ideology, Location, and Approaches.” Human Rights Quarterly, 33(2), 481–508.
• Reference 9: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNESCO (2006). Plan of Action: World Programme for Human Rights Education, First Phase. United Nations.
• Reference 10: United Nations General Assembly (2011). United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training. Resolution 66/137, A/RES/66/137, 19 December 2011.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Rights Education Inside the Duty-Bearing Institution — Rights, Policy · 1 shared source
• Rights That Can Be Used, Not Only Known — Rights · 2 shared sources
• The Right to Education Itself — Rights, Policy
• Teaching About Serious Harm — Rights
• Human Rights in Public Interpretation — Rights

Connected contributions

• The Right to Education Itself
• Rights That Can Be Used, Not Only Known
• Rights Education Inside the Duty-Bearing Institution

Where this work leads

• Human Rights Education, on the Human Rights Education page
• Telling a Learning Need from a Performance Problem, on the Learning Design page

Rights That Can Be Used, Not Only Known

From the instrument to the claim a person can make

Practised · resource not yet written

Knowing that a right exists and being able to invoke it are separate capabilities, and the second is where most programmes have room to grow. The design work is concrete: which body receives the claim, what a complaint contains, what timelines apply, what support exists, and rehearsal of the request itself — so that the learning ends closer to action than to awareness.

Grounding. Education for human rights (UN Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training); transformative agency (Bajaj); critical pedagogy (Freire)

Sources

• Reference 10: United Nations General Assembly (2011). United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training. Resolution 66/137, A/RES/66/137, 19 December 2011.
• Reference 8: Bajaj, M. (2011). “Human Rights Education: Ideology, Location, and Approaches.” Human Rights Quarterly, 33(2), 481–508.
• Reference 11: Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Herder and Herder (30th anniversary ed., Continuum, 2000).
• Reference 12: Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210. Province of British Columbia.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Models of Human Rights Education — Rights · 2 shared sources
• Rights Education Inside the Duty-Bearing Institution — Rights · 2 shared sources
• The Right to Education Itself — Rights
• Teaching About Serious Harm — Rights
• Human Rights in Public Interpretation — Rights

Connected contributions

• The Right to Education Itself
• Rights Education Inside the Duty-Bearing Institution

Where this work leads

• Human Rights Education, on the Human Rights Education page
• Closing the Knowing–Doing Gap, on the Universal Design for Learning page
• What to Build When the Answer Isn’t a Course, on the Learning Design page

Teaching About Serious Harm

Content whose subject is present in the room

Practised · resource not yet written

Some rights content concerns events that participants, their families or their communities have lived through, and the alternative to teaching it carries its own costs. The design commitments are stated in advance and hold throughout: what will be covered and when, pacing that can be adjusted, participation that does not require anyone to account for their own experience, and a route out of the room that costs nothing to use.

Grounding. Difficult knowledge (Britzman); pedagogy of discomfort (Boler); trauma-informed educational practice (Carello & Butler); SAMHSA framework

Sources

• Reference 13: Britzman, D. P. (1998). Lost Subjects, Contested Objects: Toward a Psychoanalytic Inquiry of Learning. State University of New York Press.
• Reference 14: Boler, M. (1999). Feeling Power: Emotions and Education. Routledge.
• Reference 15: Carello, J., & Butler, L. D. (2015). “Practicing What We Teach: Trauma-Informed Educational Practice.” Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(3), 262–278.
• Reference 16: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2014). SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4884.
• Reference 17: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Human Rights in Public Interpretation — Rights · 1 shared source
• Selection, Identification and the Right to Education — Rights, Equity
• The Right to Education Itself — Rights
• Models of Human Rights Education — Rights
• Rights That Can Be Used, Not Only Known — Rights

Where this work leads

• Human Rights Education, on the Human Rights Education page
• Participation Without Required Disclosure, on the Learning Design page
• Supporting a Participant in Difficulty, on the Learning Design page
• Sustaining the People Who Deliver Demanding Content, on the Learning Design page
• Indigenous & Equity-Centred KMb, on the Knowledge Mobilization page

Rights Education Inside the Duty-Bearing Institution

When the organization teaching the right also owes it

Practised · resource not yet written

Workplace and institutional rights education is usually delivered by the body that holds the corresponding obligation. Designing it well means naming that position openly, giving accurate routes to internal and external recourse including those outside the organization, and separating the record of who attended from anything that could identify what an individual disclosed.

Grounding. Duty-bearer obligations (UN Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training); human rights codes and complaint procedures; privacy in learning records

Sources

• Reference 10: United Nations General Assembly (2011). United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Education and Training. Resolution 66/137, A/RES/66/137, 19 December 2011.
• Reference 12: Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210. Province of British Columbia.
• Reference 18: Accessible Canada Act, S.C. 2019, c. 10.
• Reference 19: Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165. Province of British Columbia.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Models of Human Rights Education — Rights, Policy · 1 shared source
• Rights That Can Be Used, Not Only Known — Rights · 2 shared sources
• The Right to Education Itself — Rights, Policy
• Teaching About Serious Harm — Rights
• Human Rights in Public Interpretation — Rights

Connected contributions

• Models of Human Rights Education
• Rights That Can Be Used, Not Only Known

Where this work leads

• Human Rights Education, on the Human Rights Education page
• Designing Where the Work Must Satisfy a Reviewer, on the Learning Design page
• Learner Data, Privacy and Analytics Ethics, on the Learning Design page
• The Duty to Accommodate in Learning Design, on the Accessibility page

Human Rights in Public Interpretation

Rights content in a gallery, a memorial or a public programme

Practised · resource not yet written

Public settings reach audiences that no course reaches, and increasingly carry rights content: contested collections, memorials, and exhibitions on histories of harm. The interpretive questions are who narrates, what the visitor is told about provenance, and how a self-directed visitor of any age and background is supported through material of this weight in a short, unsupervised encounter.

A resource in two areas. Its home is Human Rights Education, and it is also part of the Public Learning set.

Grounding. Difficult heritage (Macdonald); interpretation (Serrell); Calls to Action (TRC); museum education (Hooper-Greenhill)

Sources

• Reference 20: Macdonald, S. (2009). Difficult Heritage: Negotiating the Nazi Past in Nuremberg and Beyond. Routledge.
• Reference 21: Serrell, B. (2015). Exhibit Labels: An Interpretive Approach (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
• Reference 17: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action.
• Reference 22: Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and Education: Purpose, Pedagogy, Performance. Routledge.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Teaching About Serious Harm — Rights · 1 shared source
• The Right to Education Itself — Rights
• Models of Human Rights Education — Rights
• Rights That Can Be Used, Not Only Known — Rights
• Rights Education Inside the Duty-Bearing Institution — Rights

Connected contributions

• Teaching About Serious Harm

Where this work leads

• Human Rights Education, on the Human Rights Education page
• Interpretation Bound to an Object and Its Provenance, on the Public Learning page
• Learning Nobody Is Required to Do, on the Public Learning page
• Supporting Indigenous-Led Learning Design, on the Learning Design page

Selection, Identification and the Right to Education

How places are allocated, and who is identified for them

Practised · resource not yet written

Streaming, enrichment placement, admissions screens and eligibility criteria distribute educational opportunity, and the acceptability and adaptability obligations apply directly to them. Documenting the criterion actually used, who is identified by it and who is not, and what alternative routes exist, brings selection into the same evidentiary frame as any other design decision.

Grounding. 4-A scheme (Tomaševski); CESCR General Comment 13; construct validity (Messick); equity evaluation (Mertens)

Sources

• Reference 1: Tomaševski, K. (2001). Human Rights Obligations: Making Education Available, Accessible, Acceptable and Adaptable. Right to Education Primers No. 3. Novum Grafiska, Gothenburg — the source of the 4-A scheme.
• Reference 2: UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1999). General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education (Article 13 of the Covenant). E/C.12/1999/10.
• Reference 23: Messick, S. (1995). “Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences from Persons’ Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning.” American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.
• Reference 24: Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative Research and Evaluation. Guilford Press.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• The Right to Education Itself — Rights · 2 shared sources
• Teaching About Serious Harm — Rights, Equity
• Models of Human Rights Education — Rights
• Rights That Can Be Used, Not Only Known — Rights
• Rights Education Inside the Duty-Bearing Institution — Rights

Connected contributions

• The Right to Education Itself

Where this work leads

• Human Rights Education, on the Human Rights Education page
• Eliminating Construct-Irrelevant Barriers in Assessment, on the Universal Design for Learning page
• Equity Evaluation Framework Design, on the Learning Systems Design page
• The Construct Inside the Measure, on the Epistemology page