Spunti comparativi in materia di liberta´d insegnamento

Abstract

In any study . of the topic of the freedom to create private (non State-run) schools, we must take two aspects into account: the rigbt which entities and individuals have lO undertake educative tasks, and the intetest which . those who receive schooling may have in there being a plurality of educational centers of dif~ ferent types, so that they may thus be able lO · choose that center which best corte~ ponds to their preferences. The fust aspect, which must be considered within the global context of freedom of expression, has not yet been fully dea1t with in international agreements. (si:e, however, ArticIe 13.4 of the International Agreement on Economic, Social and . Cultural Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 16th, 1966). Nonetheless, we are dealing here with a right which is recognized in many constitutions and within the framework of the educational laws of many States, although it is a1so true that others may deny bis basic right. With regard lO the second aspect, various international · agreements have recognized the right of parents lO choose the type of training and schooling they prefer for their children. This right of election is at times expressed by explicitly mentioning moral, religious -er, in any case, ideological- training which must respond to the parents' convictions. Some constitutions have made this point particularly cIear. On the other hand, in order for this right of election to be truly real, it is not sufficient that it be legally recognized. There are, in fact, many collateral and derived problems -which in spite of their apparently secondary nature are no less gravewhich have to be considered and solved, if we are to hope for the survival, in practice, of the possibility of election, and to hope for the avoidance of limitations from outside forces. Thus, for example, the State must insure that the enrolling of a child in a particular school does not imply sensibly different tuition costs than jf he had been enrolled in another school. The State must a1so insure that studies undertaken in different schools (as long as said schools are appropriate) as well as diplomas granted have the same value before the Law, in the case of those countries in which school tides have legal validity. The State must a1so see to it that those schools which possess a particular religious or ideologicaI orientation be allowed to sever its ties with any professor whose activities ron counter to the aims and purposes of the school. Some States have fully examined these problerns and have tried to solve thero in a manner that does not contravene long-standing traditions or exigencies. Religious bodies also have the same right as secular institutions and individuals to create and maintaÍn educational centers. Sorne countries even uphold, in their legislative code, that religious institutions are the most ideally suited lO carry out educative tasks. Sorne States go as far as to not only permit but also opeuly encourage religious bodies to carry out educational tasks in schools and indeed in the course of their ordinary activities.