Financing of the education system.

 

A common obstacle to the domestic implementation of the right to education is not the absence of an effective legal and policy framework, but insufficient resources to properly fund its implementation (UNESCO & Right to Education Initiative, 2019). There is a clear need for States to revisit their responsibility to ensure that the education system is financed adequately, equitably and efficiently to realize the right to education. If the scope of the right to education is broadened, for example through extending rights to free pre-primary education or to digital learning, financing will be of central importance to its implementation. Financing education concerns State obligations in two principal ways: first, the domestic financing of the education system and second, the State’spotential responsibilities as to international assistance and cooperation. In the international legal framework, States have obligations to finance education to ‘the maximum of its available resources’ (ICESCR, article 2 (1); CRC, article 4). The concept of ‘available resources’ has become broader through time, and now also implies non-monetary resources such as natural, human, technological, organizational, informational and administrative resources (Dommen & Sepúlveda, 2017). Additionally, treaty-bodies and special procedures have come to interpret this obligation as one to mobilize resources, through their preservation and expansion, rather than taking a static view of funds currently available to the treasury. This implied duty on States to mobilize funds could be fulfilled through tax revenue streams, such as progressive taxing of individuals (with wealthier individuals paying higher levels of tax), or corporate taxation (Archer & Muntasim, 2020). This obligation was reflected in the drafting of the Education 2030 Framework for Action, which emphasized the importance of strengthening domestic resource mobilization through widening of the tax base (ending harmful tax incentives), preventing tax evasion, and increasing the share of the national budget allocated to education (2015, para. 106). It is also accepted that States would fail in their obligation to take steps to the maximum of available resources by failing to seek resources from the international community if such resources are required, particularly for minimum core obligations (UNESCO & Right to Education Initiative, 2019, p. 139). This responsibility to mobilize funds could be made more explicit in the legal framework, as a duty to use ‘available resources’ has more limited connotations.

 An explicit guideline for the financing of the education system was provided by the Education 2030 Framework for Action, committing States to allocate ‘at least 4% to 6% of gross domestic product (GDP) to education; and/ or allocat[e] at least 15% to 20% of public expenditure to education’ (para. 105). In 2015, the median global public education expenditure was 4.7% of GDP, suggesting that the benchmark is feasible, though equally, one in four countries met neither benchmark, indicating that there is great disparity in their achievement (UNESCO-GEM Report, 2017b). The COVID-19 pandemic has led to significant cuts in education budgets, as governments had to focus on country-level recovery. In low and lower-middle income countries, two-thirds of countries have cut their education budgets, while in upper-middle- and high-income countries, one third of countries reduced their budgets (Al-Samarrai et al., 2022). This is highly concerning and will lead to an entrenchment of disparity in education quality and outcomes between high and low-income nations. Already prior to the pandemic, an additional $200 billion each year was required for the world to meet the SDG 4 (UN, 2022). Now, the figure is even higher. The increase in displaced learners also exacerbated the pressure on education budgets, and given the global climatic events, the number of displaced persons is expected to rise. Large differences in education spending in low-income and high-income countries are less likely to be representative of differences in the priority accorded to education in government budgets, but rather relate to differences in the size of the public sector spending (Al-Samarrai et al., 2022). Moreover, some argue that a strong emphasis on the percentage of GDP or public expenditure is unlikely to make up the funds that are desperately needed in the education sector– it would be far more effective to increase the size of the pie rather than add 1% to the share earmarked for education (Archer & Muntasim, 2020). Conversely, a clear percentage could ensure greater accountability and clearer benchmarking. Regardless, the response falls to governments to mobilize funds by increasing the amount of money for public spending. The second State obligation in the realm of financing is also found in article 2 (1) of the ICESCR, which requires Member States to ‘take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical.’ [Emphasis added.] In order to realize the right to education, States have an obligation to seek international assistance and co-operation, and States in a position to do so, have a duty to provide it. The CESCR makes clear that the full realization of the right to education worldwide is incumbent on States that are able to do so to have an ‘active programme of international assistance and cooperation’ (CESCR, 1990, para 13). Article 28 (3) of the CRC requires States to promote and encourage international cooperation in matters relating to education. Donor States must respect the principles and priorities set out in the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2011). The CESCR and the CRPD have interpreted international assistance and cooperation obligations strictly, and in line with the 0.7% (of gross national product) Official Development Assistance (ODA) target, that is widely endorsed by international and regional organizations. It is notable that a regression in the provided level of aid that is not fully justified would be treated, presumptively, as a violation of States’ obligations under international law. To address the root cause of funding issues globally, macro-level changes are required. The concept of a ‘human rights-based economy’ has recently emerged to rethink the global economic architecture (Center for Economic and Social Rights et al., 2020). For instance, a shift is needed to ensure that global economic governance do not impede socioeconomic rights, such as education, including by ‘cancelling debt and by cooperating, not competing, in response to collective problems such as climate change, pandemics and illicit financial flows’ (Center for Economic and Social Rights et al., 2020, p. 6). Building effective and accountable institutions that uphold human rights is also required by SDG16. Furthermore, international financing institutions often impose austerity measures that can cripple a country’s ability to provide for quality education services. Instead, such institutions could encourage countries to increase spending on the public sector wage bill to support the financing of teacher salaries at country levels (UN, 2022). Beyond increasing the budget allocated to education, during the side meeting of the Transforming Education Pre-Summit, the importance of also addressing how the budget is allocated was raised. This requires ensuring a gender-sensitive and inclusive approach to budget allocation but also greater scrutiny of the budget to ensure that resources are allocated, dispersed, and spent in a transparent way (including to avoid tax revenues being lost to corporate tax abuses). State obligations in this regard would help in ensuring that the resources are efficiently used and reaching those who need it most. These obligations, relating to progressive realization, international assistance and cooperation, concepts such as ‘maximum available resources’ and resisting austerity policies that reduce education financing, could benefit from clarification so that both governments and human rights monitoring bodies can accurately evaluate whether State responses are compliant with international law (Dommen & Sepúlveda, 2017). Although it is sensitive to intervene in the financial governance of States, the consultative process uncovered that many participants felt that the right to education can only be progressed by simultaneously addressing societal issues such as poverty, inequality, corruption and bad governance, head on.