3rd meeting, 2nd session of the IGWG on an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the rights to early childhood education, free pre-primary education and free secondary education.

Good morning again, Excellency's, colleagues, Distinguished participants, I hereby declare this morning session open.
Under agenda item seven, we will hold four thematic discussions.
The Secretariat has made a concept note available on its website to inform these discussions.
Our aim is to foster a meaningful exchange of views and experiences among member states and other stakeholders on the possibility of elaborating and submitting to the Human Rights Council the draft optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the child, on the right to early childhood education, free um education, and free secondary education.
We are committed to ensuring that the dialogue goes on effective experiences, good practices, strategies relevant to the working group's mandate.
The working group is honored to welcome esteemed representatives from member states, as well as experts from the United Nations, civil society, academia as speakers in these clusters.
We are especially honored to have participation of child representatives who would open the discussion under each of the clusters.
The child representatives, Colin, are you there? Yes.
Oh, okay.
Kyle is on the other end.
Fair enough.
That's fine.
La Lana is here with me.
That's wonderful.
Roberto is following online and Sona you're there.
Wonderful.
To Thord is here with me.
These are advocates from five global regions.
As stipulated in resolution 565, the Human Rights Council requested that the opening intergovernmental working group ensures the meaningful participation of children in an ethical, safe, and inclusive manner.
And to give children the opportunity to express their views on the topic and substance of the proposed optional protocol.
This should be facilitated through child friendly information and by listening to and acting upon children's views as appropriate.
In this regard, in addition to public call for submissions from children last year and the elaboration of child friendly documents, the OHR conducted a selection process of five children based on a public call for nominations to participate in the first session of the working group.
Five candidates from around the world were selected based on the previous advocacy experiences and engagement with access to education.
Four of these children join us for the second session.
A new child representative joins us at the second session from Western Europe as the former child representative from this region turned 18 years.
As you heard from the child representative yesterday, between December 2025 and July 2026, they conducted virtual regional consultations on the mandates of the working group with the support of civil society organizations, and I wish to do my heart and appreciation to all those members of civil society that have been of tremendous support to these children.
In May 2026, they also conducted consultations with other children on the draft key principles.
The feedback provided by the children on the draft key principles was subsequently shared with my self as chair rapporteur.
Our aim is to ensure that this is a safe, friendly, empowering space for all participants.
To this end, I ask you to kindly bear in mind the following.
One, I encourage everyone to interact respectfully and to use clear, accessible language where possible.
Two, it is our shared responsibility to keep children safe and to ensure that they can participate meaningfully and inclusively.
Three, to support children's safe participation, children will not be asked to respond to questions or statements from the floor.
Finally, please do not take photos or make videos in the room, particularly of children without their prior consent.
If you have safeguarding questions, please inform the OHHR staff at the registration or list of speaker's desk or email, children at un.org.
As I pleaded with you yesterday, I also encourage delegations to also bear in mind that the only means of encouragement that we give to these children is at any point where they delivered their statements, I encourage you to please applaud them, applaud them, and applaud them.
Each discussions will begin with a presentation from the panelist.
I will then invite participants in the room to ask questions or make comments before returning to the panelists for the responses.
Now, let me move to the first thematic panel discussion on the cluster one, which covers the scope and objectives of the optional protocol.
In essence, it will address principles one, two, and three of one of the key principles.
Well, let me introduce our distinguished panelists.
The child representatives from Eastern European States, Larna and child representative from Western European and all the states, Todd, Mr.
Jonathan Tedros from the College of Law, George State University in the USA, miss Sophie Lane, International Policy advocacy Officer, girls, not brides, miss Jan Risler, special advisor on Inclusive Education, International Disability Alliance, and by me, miss Florenta Russo, the F Sectary of the Permanent Mission of the Permanent delegation of Uruguay to the UN in Geneva.
I would like to invite delegates and participants who have not already pre registered for the list of speakers to register with the Secretariat in the room.
The registration for the list of speakers will close in 15 minutes.
I ask delegations to limit their interventions to 2 minutes.
To this end, I will now hand over to our first panelist, both Lana and Thord to begin.
Over to you, please.
Thank you, S.
My name is Strand.
I'm 12-years-old from Sweden and the child representative from Western Europe and other states.
The CRC already recognizes the right to education, but free pre primary and secondary education aren't guaranteed the same way free primary education is.
That's the gap this protocol needs to close.
Turning the right to free education from something implicit into something explicit and enforceable.
The objective isn't to convince anyone in this room that education matters.
Nobody here needs persuading of that.
The objective is to close a very specific, very well documented gap between what's already promised under Article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and what children are actually experiencing on the ground in their own words, in their own countries.
And we don't have to guess what that gap looks like because children told us directly.
Across every single region we consulted, Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and Middle East and North Africa, completely independently of one another, without any coordination.
Children kept naming the exact same barrier.
Hidden costs, transport, uniforms, learning materials, meals, sometimes exam fees.
Children who have never met, who live under completely different governments, completely different economic systems, completely different school systems, and they described almost the same experience in almost the same words.
That's not a coincidence.
When something shows up that consistently across that much diversity, it stops being an anecdote and starts being evidence of something structural.
Education may be formally a right, but financial and other barriers can prevent children from actually enjoying that right in practice.
Somewhere between the treaty text and school gate, free stops mean free, and that's precisely the space this protocol needs to close.
So what should the scope of this protocol actually cover? It should clearly guarantee at least one year of free public primary education and free public secondary education.
But scope on its own isn't enough.
Free has to be understood in a way that's meaningful in children's everyday lives, not just meaningful on paper.
That means accounting for hidden costs that can keep a child out of school even once tuition itself is free.
This protocol has to focus on actual access, not simply on whether a state has technically removed a school fee, and it has to apply to every child without discrimination, including children who face additional barriers.
Think about what access actually requires in practice.
It's not just being permitted to enroll.
It's being able to physically reach the school in the first place.
It's having the uniform required to walk through the door.
It's having the materials needed to actually participate once you're inside.
And it's being able to stay enrolled long enough to finish rather than dropping out halfway through because a family could no longer absorb the costs.
A protocol that only guarantees the first of those enrollment while ignoring the rest hasn't actually solved the problem.
It's just relocated it.
The real objective of this protocol has to be making free, enforceable, not just aspirational.
Because right now a government can point to a treaty and claim compliance, while a child is sitting at home because their family couldn't afford the bus fare that morning.
That's not a hypothetical.
It's a pattern children across five regions described independently in their own words.
Closing that gap and being specific where existing instruments have stayed general is exactly where complementarity with existing frameworks comes in.
Which is what Lana is going to speak to next.
Thank you, Trent.
If a potential protocol is about causing a specific gap, we also need to be clear about how it fits within the frameworks that already exist.
First, the protocol should build on the convention of the rights of the child rather than duplicate it.
The CRC already recognizes the right to education under Article 28.
We are not trying to create a completely new right.
Instead, the protocol should address the gaps that remain, particularly when it comes to free pre primary and secondary education.
It should clarify and strengthen commitments that already exist rather than simply repeating them.
The same applies to other international frameworks, including SDG four and the existing optional protocols to the CRC.
These frameworks provide an important foundation, but this protocol should bring greater specificity to one particular issue, the right to free pre primary public and secondary education.
The question should not be, how can we create another general commitment to education? It should be what is still missing and what can this protocol meaningfully add? One of the most important areas where it can add value is accountability.
It's only meaningful if there are clear obligations behind it.
States that ratify this protocol should know exactly what they are expected to do, and there should be stronger mechanisms to ensure that these commitments are already implemented.
This is particularly important because as children have told us through the original consultations that we organized over the last year, there is often a gap between existing rights exist in our paper and children actually experiencing those rights in their everyday lives.
This brings us to one of the most important messages from our original presentations.
Free must mean free in practice.
Education can officially be called free while families still face cost of transport, uniforms, books, and other learning materials, meals or even exam fees.
For a child, these costs can determine whether they can actually go to school, participate fully, stay in education, and complete it.
When we talk about complementarity, we should not see this protocol as something separate from the existing human rights framework.
We should see it as a way of making existing commitments more specific, more accountable, and more meaningful in children's lives.
This is also why the child perspective has to be a part of defining the scope and objectives of this protocol.
Children are not simply beneficies of education.
We are right holders.
Our experiences show us where existing commitments are not yet enough.
Through the original presentations that we held, children consistently show that access means much more than simply being allowed to enroll.
It means being able to reach school, enter, participate, stay, and benefit from school.
This is why the protocol should not only ask whether education is formally free, it should ask whether every child can access and experienced education without financial or other barriers.
Ultimately, we don't need another general statement that education is important.
If there is a decision to move forward with the drafting protocol, we need one that strengthens existing frameworks, fills their gaps and creates clear accountability so that free education becomes a reality for every child.
That is the difference between a right that exists on paper and a right that a child can actually experience.
The optional protocol should not simply create a promise of free education.
It should create a clear right that children can actually experience in their everyday lives.
Thank you.
Wonderful.
Wonderful.
That's so brilliant.
But I think delegations are quick to forget.
I made a request.
Could you please honor that request, please.
So each time the children speak, their words are as clear and as crystal as water.
So I'd like to thank both Larna and Thord for the presentation.
They've indicated clearly not just your stakes in these proceedings, but clearly their interest.
And that is reinforced in the provisions of Article 3, subparagraph three, which tells us that whatever actions that we take, we must do so in the best interests of the child.
And that's the same question I'll pose to you again.
Is what we're doing as a working group, is it in the best interests of the child? That's a rhetorical question.
Thank you.
I now move to the next speaker, who is Professor Janetan Tedros from College of Law, George State University, the United States.
Professor Tos, you have the floor, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Your Excellency's distinguished delegates, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this dialogue on a potential fourth optional protocol to the CRC on the right to education.
My name is Jonathan Todri.
I'm a professor of law.
I have worked on and researched children's rights issues for more than 25 years.
I'd like to address two issues, the need for this optional protocol, which speaks to scope and questions about regression.
I believe the case for new international law on the right to education is strong.
It's important to understand that the current standard in the Convention on the Rights of the Child is largely the same standard articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
That is, the language on the right to education has changed relatively little in 78 years in terms of its express mandate.
On primary education is required to be free for all children.
However, the world's changed dramatically in two respects since 1948 or even since the CRC's adoption in 1989.
First, the world around children has transformed.
Technological advances have affected all aspects of society with significant impacts for children and their families.
As a result, what it means to educate a child and prepare a child for a fruitful life has changed too.
Primary education alone is no longer sufficient.
Supporting children's full development requires more.
Second, the science of child and adolescent development has advanced significantly since 1989.
Early childhood education is now understood as foundational to children's full development.
However, it's not expressly acknowledged in the CRC.
Secondary education is also understood as critical, yet the CRC and other treaties stop short of requiring free access to secondary education.
While opinions vary on certain aspects of education, there is consensus that every child should have access to education without financial barriers, direct or indirect from pre primary through secondary education.
We need a legal standard to match that consensus.
Some have asked whether the CRC already provides us.
On pre primary education, the idea that pre primary education is encompassed within the right to education is not in dispute.
What is in question is whether the language of the CRC provides a sufficient legal mandate on pre primary education.
It is a foundational legal principle that express recognition of a right or a protected class offers greater protections.
When we examine legal action to enforce education rights or advocacy at a policy level, we find that express recognition in treaty language or constitutions or national law makes a significant difference.
The proposed optional protocol would do that by expressly affirming the right to education includes pre primary education and by mandating at least one year of free pre primary education.
For secondary education, while secondary education is addressed in the CRC, Article 28 does not impose the same obligation on states for secondary education as compared to primary education.
There is no disputing that.
Indeed, the language of Article 28 on secondary education is not as strong as the mandate in the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights.
The CRC does not require free secondary education for every child, but rather suggests the introduction of secondary education as an appropriate measure for states to consider.
After more than 35 years of the CRC and 60 years of the International Covenant on Economic Social, and Cultural rights, it is clear that a stronger mandate is needed.
Statements have been made in this process that the challenge is not one of law, but rather implementation.
Implementation is a challenge for all human rights.
However, respectfully, it is incorrect to suggest that the process of strengthening law is an entirely separate project from implementation.
Law and implementation are intertwined.
Express recognition in law enhances capacities for implementation.
There is an implementation gap.
The question, however, is what provides the best set of tools to advance implementation? We know from both international law and the domestic law of states that express language, whether it be in the CRC or national law, is an important tool for implementation.
It is why the Committee on the Rights of the Child has pressed states for express recognition of children's rights at the constitutional and national level.
In short, at the international, national and local level, evidence shows that having a strong legal mandate makes a difference and provides a powerful tool for children's rights implementation.
Next on regression.
Concerns regarding regression center around two topics, reinterpretations of the CRC and justiciability.
Questions have been raised whether express recognition of free secondary education or free pre primary education in an optional protocol would negatively affect interpretations of the CRC.
Here, past practice offers important answers with respect to the impact of optional protocols on underlying treaties.
Optional protocols have been adopted to the CRC and other human rights treaties.
In all my research, however, I have not identified a single instance where states concluded that an optional protocol negatively whether an optional protocol negated or lessened the mandate of the underlying treaty.
The experience of the optional protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution, and child pornography is instructive on this question.
When the OPSC was adopted, it included more detailed requirements than the CRC had on sexual exploitation of children.
However, that did not mean that states could reinterpret the CRC as requiring less with respect to preventing sexual exploitation of children.
If OP four is adopted, it will provide express mandates.
But that would not allow states to reinterpret and deny their duties under CRC Article 28.
Moreover, express provisions could be drafted and included in the optional protocol to affirm this point as Principle three suggests.
Stepping back from the specifics of the optional protocol, it's important to emphasize that international law is clear that reinterpreting human rights treaties to reduce obligations is inconsistent with the principle of non regression or non retrogression.
It also would be a violation of Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which requires that treaty obligations be performed by states in good faith and Article 31 of the Vienna Convention, which obligates states to interpret the CRC in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose.
Both past practice and well established international law, including the Vienna Convention, point to one conclusion.
A new optional protocol would not allow or imply a regressive interpretation of the CRC.
The second question centers around regression.
The scope of the optional protocol and a communications procedure or OIC was written as a closed list.
This process cannot change that.
However, consider for a moment if OPC had been the first optional protocol adopted, as was the case with other human rights treaties.
If so, we would not say that a claim cannot be brought under the CRC regarding sexual exploitation of children simply because a state had ratified OPSC.
The same principle will hold true with a new optional protocol on the right to education.
In addition, and importantly, the proposed scope of the new optional protocol would not change at all the ability to bring claims against a state that ratified OPEC for discrimination in education, for violations of children's rights during school discipline, and other issues covered by the CRC.
Finally, it is important to recall that while conventions and optional protocols are negotiated at the international level, the hard work of realizing children's rights happens primarily at the national and local levels.
A stronger mandate on the right to free education would provide a powerful tool for state level advocacy and litigation to enforce children's rights to access education, far from regression, that would help advance implementation.
Let me close with one final thought.
Drafting legal instruments, treaties, constitutions, national law is a challenging process.
However, we have an opportunity to address a significant issue, the right to education and have international law reflect what we know today is critical for all children.
Whatever differences of opinion that may exist, I respectfully request states to fully consider this important juncture.
If we go forward thoughtfully and produce an optional protocol based on the key principles, then we can forge a strong mandate that provides a foundation for coordinated action to ensure every child has access to education and can develop to their full potential.
If we delay, I worry that the children of our world will conclude that we are not willing to do more to ensure their right to education.
Thank you.
I look forward to your question.
Wonderful.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Professor Torus.
I mean, that presentation was not just insightful, but it provides far more deeper reflection on the very critical issues that serves as the cox of the matter in many of the concerns that some delegations have been using repeatedly.
Thank you so much for delivering it so eloquently.
Thank you very much indeed.
Now, we move to the next speaker.
The panelist is miss Sophie Lane.
Miss Sophie Lane is coming from the she is the International Policy and advocacy Or, girls not Bright.
Miss Lane, you have the floor, please.
Thank you, Chair.
Girls Not Brides, the global Partnership to End Child marriage is a movement of over 1,400 civil society organizations across nearly 100 countries.
On behalf of the Girls Not Brides Secretariat, thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
We warmly welcome this working groups initiative to explore a fourth optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a significant moment for children's right to education and for the millions of girls whose access to it shapes whether they marry as children.
We particularly welcome the mandate to ensure children's meaningful, ethical, safe, and inclusive participation throughout this process.
Five child representatives from each region shared their views during the first session and subsequently led consultations with around 80 children worldwide, first on the broader initiative and later on the key principles.
This is groundbreaking, the first time this council has built children's voices this directly into a standard setting process on a matter that shapes their own lives, and we hope it sets a precedent.
We also thank the chair Rapporteur, Ambassador Saffer, for the key principles and the work behind them.
Girls not bride supports this optional protocol not only as complimentary to the existing international framework on education, but as a critical step towards strengthening that framework and making the right to education more effective in practice.
This matters especially because free education, particularly secondary education is one of the most effective means of preventing child marriage.
Where girls stay in school, child marriage rates fall.
Where barriers to education persist, including financial barriers, girls face a greater risk of leaving school and marrying before the age of 18.
An instrument securing free pre primary and secondary education is in real terms, an instrument to help end child marriage.
UNICEF estimates that if all girls completed secondary school, child marriage in the countries where it is most concentrated would fall by around two thirds, while analysis by the World Bank concludes that universal secondary completion could lead to a virtual elimination of child marriage.
The effect is cumulative.
Each additional year in secondary education reduces a girl's likelihood of marrying before 18 by around six percentage points.
Barriers to education do not just correlate with child marriage, they help drive it.
Globally, 87% of married adolescent girls aged 15 to 17 are out of school and the decisions to remove a girl from school and to marry her are very often taken together.
Cost is the operative barrier and removing it works.
A study in rural sia found girls given a boarding scholarship were around half as likely to be married three years later.
Eliminating school fees cut child marriage by ten percentage points in Ethiopia and by 15 in Rwanda, although no effect was detected in some countries.
This shows that abolishing school fees is necessary but not sufficient.
As child representatives highlighted during yesterday's panel.
Three, education must also address the hidden costs that continue to exclude children facing the greatest barriers, including at a minimum, uniforms, transport, and learning materials.
Education is protective because it builds autonomy and delays childbearing and because it opens genuine life and labor opportunities.
Protection is strongest where secondary education is paired with real economic opportunity for girls after they leave school.
Since the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the world has made real progress.
Enrollment in primary education now stands around 90% globally, a transformation from a century ago when school was the exception.
But the convention only asks that primary education be free and compulsory.
Secondary is merely encouraged with free provision, something states were just asked to introduce.
The gap shows in the data.
Since 2000, completion has risen to 88% at primary level, but only to 78% at lower secondary and 61% at upper secondary.
This is precisely the gap this optional protocol would close.
We have real evidence of what happens when states legislate free education to highlight just a few examples.
Following the introduction of Ghana's free senior high school policy in 2017, 18, girls completion rose by 14 percentage points in districts with high uptake.
Sierra Leone free quality school education program launched in 2018, took enrollment from under 2 million to over 3 million within three years, with girls reaching parity with boys at primary and junior secondary levels.
In Argentina, a pre primary expansion targeting disadvantaged areas raised secondary completion by 12 percentage points.
These gains came from domestic policy choices.
What they lacked was a binding international floor, one treating free pre primary and secondary education as a distinct, dedicated legal obligation with real accountability and reporting behind it.
This optional protocol would also lay the foundation for dedicated budget lines nationally and internationally for a sector that is chronically underfunded.
Pre primary receives on average just 6.6% of national education budgets, 2% in low income countries, and a mere 1.7% of international aid to education.
That underfunding is hard to justify economically.
UNESCO estimates out of school children and gaps in learning cost the global economy around $10 trillion a year.
Each additional year of schooling is associated with around 10% higher earnings on average, while UNSCO puts the return on early childhood care and education around 13%.
In addition, a study by the World Bank and the International Center for Research on women found ending child marriage could bring welfare gains worth hundreds of billions a year by the year 2030.
Investing in free pre primary and secondary education is therefore one of the best value investments a government can make for education, for gender equality, and generating lasting social and economic benefits.
Both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights already frame free secondary education as progressively achievable.
But progressive realization alone has not delivered the results children need, as the completion gaps set out make clear.
This optional protocol would go further, creating a clear, unambiguous legal standard for free secondary education, equivalent to the one children already have for free primary education.
This is also timely.
As we move toward the convention's 40th anniversary, this is a chance to modernize its promise for today's children, recognizing that the right to education neither begins at the primary school gates nor ends at it.
In closing, Girls Not Brides reiterates its strong support for the optional protocol and urges member states to continue advancing this important process.
Should the optional protocol progress to a drafting stage, as we hope it will, we would further welcome consideration of preamble language recognizing the importance of access to free, inclusive and quality education, particularly at secondary level as a key protective factor against child marriage.
This is especially important for girls at risk of child marriage who are often among the most marginalized and face the greatest barriers to education.
The evidence is clear.
Education is one of the most effective measures for preventing child marriage and a critical safeguard for the realization of children's rights.
Advancing this optional protocol would therefore be a decisive step towards securing the right to education for every child and with it, meaningful protection against child marriage.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much indeed.
Clearly, the presentation speaks to the level of challenges that girls experience when they are out of school.
And you have went further to provide statistics of the current state of the challenges that girls out of school experience.
This is a client calls all of us to think in our positions and in some of the contributions we continue to make during the course of our deliberation for the next day and throughout this session.
I thank you very much indeed for your presentation, and of course, I appreciate the fact that you also highlighted, I mean states with next example.
I mean, Slone, for example, even with our economic challenges, we believe human capital development to be at the heart of our governance architecture, and will continue to do so.
I thank you so much for your presentation, and we move to the next panelist, who is miss Yes.
Miss Denchl is a special advisor, advisor on Inclusive Education, International Disability Alliance.
Miss Hechler, you have the floor, please.
Thank you.
Distinguished Chair Rapporteur, Excellencies, and colleagues.
Thank you to the chair for including me in this panel in recognition that the proposed optional protocol has the potential to improve the educational status of children with disabilities who are among the most excluded from education.
It's my honor to be speaking here today on behalf of the International Disability Alliance, IDA, which is an alliance of over 1,100 organizations of persons with disabilities and their families from across the globe.
IDA welcomes the process to establish an optional protocol to the CRC because it helps shine a light on the challenges remaining for full recognition of the right to education for learners with disabilities, which we highlighted in our submission to the working group in May 2025.
At a time when UNESCO has confirmed that low and lower income countries are projected to lose 30% of their aid to education 2023-2027, it's critical that the discussion of a potential optional protocol serves to prevent regression and prioritizes implementation and financing challenges.
Although the right to education is guaranteed in the CRC and CRPD, children with disabilities are less likely to receive early stimulation, less likely to attend early childhood education, less likely to read or be read to at home, less likely to have foundational reading and numeracy skills, more likely to experience severe corporal punishment at home, more likely to feel discriminated against, and more likely to feel unhappy.
Article 24 of the CRPD, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, is the first provision in an International Human Rights instrument to explicitly guarantee the right to inclusive education at all levels.
This provision was further developed by the CRPD Committee in its general comment for in 2016.
Which states, States parties must ensure the realization of the right of persons with disabilities to education through an inclusive education system at all levels, including preschool, primary, secondary, and tertiary education, vocational training and lifelong learning, extracurricular and social activities.
The right to inclusive education enshrined in the CRPD has come to be a standard fully embraced by the CRC throughout its work in monitoring implementation in its concluding observations and consolidated with the adoption of the joint statement by the CRC and CRPD committees in 2022.
The committees reaffirmed that the right to quality inclusive education is not compatible with sustaining two systems of education, a mainstream education system and a special segregated education system.
But despite these provisions, most learners with disabilities who do access education receive it in segregated settings.
Despite legal provisions, barriers and discrimination against learners with disabilities persist.
The paradigm shift of the CRPD from a medical model focused on limitations and an incapacity approach to a human rights model has not eliminated prejudice against persons with disabilities, resulting in neglect, bullying, segregation, and even complete exclusion from education.
Considering the objectives of Human Rights Council resolution 56 slash five and the chair rapporteurs Rev one of the principals for the elaboration of an optional protocol to the CRC, the IDA raises several concerns.
One, a new protocol cannot permit any regression from the CRPD guarantee of inclusive education as articulated in general comment four.
It states, Inclusion involves a process of systemic reform, embodying changes and modifications in content, teaching methods, approaches, structures, and strategies in education.
Placing students with disabilities within mainstream classes without accompanying structural changes to, for example, organization, curriculum, and teaching and learning strategies does not constitute inclusion.
Two, for learners with disabilities to be included, there must be a zero rejection policy.
Such a policy means not only being registered at school, but also supported to remain and thrive there.
Too often, parents are told to child from school either completely or partially, often called to take a child home in the middle of the day.
Three, including learners with disabilities requires reasonable accommodation, an adapted, not different curriculum, appropriate modes of assessment, and individual educational plans.
Four, for education to be free for learners with disabilities, education must address disability related costs, transportation, assistive technology, individual support, and reasonable accommodations.
Too often, families are required to pay for the support that makes it possible for their sons and daughters to participate or even sometimes to accompany their child to class and provide personal support.
Free education for learners with disabilities means being able to participate on an equal basis with others and not being excluded because of disability related costs.
Five, secondary education must eliminate gender bias, including access to accessible wash facilities and preparation for future employment.
Six, recognizing that many learners with disabilities may have been denied access to primary or secondary education, access to lifelong learning can provide opportunities to compensate for lost years.
Finally, seven, transforming education to reach all learners, including those with disabilities, is needed to ensure resilient and inclusive education systems.
Solutions that support the inclusion of learners with disabilities, who are often those most at risk of neglect, stigma, and abuse are the same approaches that support the well being and success of all learners.
Committing to inclusive education means committing to this transformation to a system that meets the needs of all learners.
As noted in CRPD General Comment four, inclusive education is central to achieving high quality education for all learners, including those with disabilities and for the development of inclusive, peaceful, and fair societies.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, miss Kschler.
The emphasis of your statement clearly speaks to inclusive education, which is the whole emphasis of SDG four equitable and inclusive education.
Thank you so much for that presentation.
We would now have a video statement, and this will be done by the Vice Minister for Technical and Pological Services, Ministry of Education of the Dominican Republic.
And that is doctor Ansel Sea.
Please, Secretariat, could you please screen the video? Distinguished Mr.
Boghesev, permanent ambassador of the Mission of the Republic of Sierra Leone and chairperson Rapporteur Represent for Children.
Distinguished state representatives, members of the academic community, international organizations, and civil society.
The Dominican Republic sincerely appreciates this possibility to participate in this panel related to Principles one, two, and three of the draft optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
As part of this second session of the open ended intergovernmental working group that meets here today to look at the possibility of elaborating and presenting this instrument to the Human Rights Council.
Today, we're here moved by the commitment to continue promoting protection of the rights of children, considering children to be the greatest asset for the development of our countries.
The right to education cannot be a promise that we postpone.
It must be translated into permanent and timely actions that make it possible to implement SDG four and international regulations that provide for its protection.
This right must be guaranteed from early childhood.
A stage that represents the biological, cognitive and emotional foundation on which the integrated development of the person is built.
Its attention is a priority for the most vulnerable populations, and this is why guaranteeing access to education from the earliest year represents an urgency and an essential act of social justice.
In order for this right to be truly universal and not a privilege, each state party to the United Nations system should assume this responsibility and turn it into a commitment to ensure that public education, both at the primary and secondary levels is free and available to everyone.
Free education helps to eliminate socioeconomic barriers that perpetuate inequality, free access to education from early school years, To the end of adolescence democratizes knowledge and lays the foundation for real social transformation.
To achieve these objectives, we need joint efforts of the international community as well as the legal and institutional articulation made by each government to implement effective public policies.
Dominican Republic, the Ministry of Education continues to develop actions aimed at guaranteeing access to free education at the primary, basic, and secondary levels.
In this respect, I would like to avail ourselves of this opportunity to share with you some updates about the most emblematic programs that have been implemented in recent years that have contributed to expand coverage and favoring more than 2 million students in public pre university education system.
In terms of coverage at the initial level, enrollment exceeded the levels recorded before the pandemic moving from more than 365,000 students in 2020 to 392,000 students in 2025.
This growth is mainly due to the public sector whose participation has increased from 48% to 59%.
We also have expanded the extended school day, which currently benefits 76% of our students.
The broadening of school infrastructure has made it possible to respond to the growth in demand, incorporating children 3-5 years of age into public schools and strengthening at the same time the coverage at the secondary level.
Also, the modalities of technical, vocational, secondary education and arts have been expanded.
The joint enrollment in technical, vocational education and arts increased from more than 103,000 students in the 2019 2020 school year to more than 120,000 in the period of 25, 26.
In addition to these initiatives, there's free distribution of textbooks for all students in the public system.
And delivery of school supplies and school meals, benefits that reach more than 1.8 million students each year.
Also, the school transportation Program Te guarantees safe and free transfer of students to their educational centers.
For its part, the school voucher consists of a monetary transfer delivered to families at the beginning of the school year with the objective of alleviating economic limitations that could affect the attendance and permanence of students in classrooms.
Finally, I would like to highlight the importance of continuing to make progress in the work related to the development of the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This is a novel instrument which does not duplicate the provisions established in other international documents.
It is something that motivates states to guarantee at least one year of pre primary education for the benefit of children.
The right to education must be assumed from a progressive approach without undermining the rights acquired over time as a result of social struggles and demands.
Every step forward achieved in the area of education must be irreversible without setbacks, barriers, or bureaucracies that prevent its full realization.
Thank you very much.
Muts Garcias, doctor Mendoza, for sharing your national perspective, we deeply and truly appreciate those views.
Thank you so much.
We would have another and this will be the final national perspective, which will be shared by miss Florencia Riso.
She's a first sect at the Permanent Mission of Uruguay.
Miss Riso, I give you the floor, please.
Thank you very much, Chair Rapporteur.
Good morning.
Uruguay appreciates this opportunity to share its national experience within the framework of this first cluster related to the scope, objectives, and complementarity of an eventual optional protocol.
With regard to principle one, we understand that a clear definition of the scope of this instrument is crucial to guide the work of the group.
In this context, the national experience of countries can provide specific elements on three central dimensions of the mandate.
Early childhood care and education, free public pre primary education, and free public secondary education.
Uruguay has a regulatory framework that recognizes education as a fundamental human right and a public and social good aimed at the full physical, mental, clinical, and intellectual development of all people without any discrimination.
The general education law establishes that the state must guarantee and promote effective exercise of the right to education throughout the life of individuals and enshrines the principles of universality free of charge, compulsory, equal opportunities, and participation.
Compulsory education extends to initial education from the age of four years until the end of secondary education.
Formal education includes initial education of three, four, and five years, primary education, basic secondary education, upper secondary education.
This framework makes it possible to have education as a continuous trajectory which begins in the early stages of life and extends through adolescence.
Compulsory education extends from the age of four to the end of secondary education.
Also, formal education includes initial education, three and four in five years, primary education, basic secondary education, upper secondary education.
In this way, our educational system represents a continuous trajectory which begins in the early stages of life and accompanies children and adolescents throughout their development.
The freedom of education or education free of charge is one of the central principles of our system, an essential condition for guaranteeing the effective exercise of the right to education and conditions of equality.
It's not limited only to the lack or absence of tuition or fees, but as part of a broader framework of policies aimed at ensuring access, permanence, and continuity of educational trajectories.
In the area of early childhood, the General Education Act recognizes that the educational process begins at birth and its first stage extends until the age of three.
From this perspective, care during the first years of life is conceived as a comprehensive approach that includes development care protection together with the accompaniment of families and physical and mental health care.
At the national level, especially relevant example is the Kyiv Plan, an interinstitutional public policy for comprehensive early childhood care aimed at children of the age of zero to three and their families.
The plan combines through social educational centers, pedagogical proposals, family support, development promotion, nutrition, health care, community participation, and territorial work.
In pre primary education 2002-2023, coverage increased significantly from 35% to 83%.
Okay.
Notwithstanding these advances, it is estimated that about 15% of children of that age are still not going to school.
For this reason, a roadmap was developed towards ensuring universalization of level three education, aimed at ensuring that all three year olds can join the education system through a territorial perspective, identifying gaps in coverage, ensuring places in schools, and responding to unmet demand.
With regard to secondary education, Uruguay has a compulsory and public secondary education made of basic secondary education and upper secondary education.
The experience of our country shows the importance of structuring secondary education not only as a guarantee of access, but it trajectory must be sustained until it is completed.
In 2025, progress was achieved in the incorporation of adolescence 815, 2016, 2017 to formal education system with reengagement and support strategies for those who are outside of the educational system or at risk of disengagement.
With regard to Principle two, we appreciate the panel's mandate that the mandate does not duplicate or revise the provisions already provided in the convention.
We see from our experience that development of specific norms in the field of education does not imply isolating the right of education from the broader framework of human rights.
On the contrary, the general law of education establishes education as a reference to all human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, our Constitution, and international instruments ratified by Uruguay.
Representing a fundamental framework for educational programs, proposals, and actions.
Also, the law contains relevant provisions on treaties and international cooperation.
In particular, it reaffirms that education should be seen as a public good and that international cooperation must contribute to the implementation of the objectives of our educational policy.
With regard to Principle three, we particularly appreciate the inclusion of a non regression clause Which we believe is crucial to ensure that the eventual optional protocol functions as a common protection framework and not as a ceiling that could limit, reduce, or discourage more favorable national progress.
National experience shows the importance of preserving the possibility that states maintain and develop their own regulatory frameworks, public policies, and standards that are broader than may eventually be agreed at the international level.
Specific example of such an approach is the gradual increase in resources approved in the national budget for 2025 29, with a clear priority on children and adolescents to which 40% of our additional allocations are planned.
Among the priority measures are economic support for school support bonuses, aimed at accompanying students initial and primary education in situations of greater vulnerability, the expansion of so called BTA scholarships aimed at supporting permanence and completion of secondary education and extension of pedagogical time, the strengthening of school and student food services, as well as support for social educational spacing.
Mr.
Chairperson, Rapporteur, the shared national experience shows how the principles addressed in this cluster can be translated in practice into regulatory frameworks, public policies, institutional coordinations, and relevant adequate resources, and specific challenges in each national context.
We hope that these inputs will contribute to the substantive discussion in this working group, especially in the scope of the eventual protocol, its complementarity with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the incorporation of non regression clause that will make it possible to preserve and encourage more favorable national standards.
Thank you.
Ms Garcias, miss Russo for so eloquently presenting your national experience to the relevant provisions of the key principles.
With that, we move to you from the floor to ask your questions, to make your comments, and deliver your statements where feasible.
I will turn to the list of speakers.
Please remember to limit your interventions to 2 minutes, please.
I have the list of speakers before me and the first on the list is the Russian Federation.
The Russian Federation, I give you the floor, please.
Ds.
Thank you very much, Chairperson Rapporteur.
We would also like to thank the panelists for very useful presentations.
As far as the first thematic cluster is concerned, we would like to share with you the following ideas.
The Russian Federation shares in general the Essence of proposals contained in principle one.
At the same time, certain aspects require clarification in terms of terminology.
First of all, a draft does not clearly indicate the age of children in question in relation to preschool education.
The text has attempts to include the right to free education for young children and included in the general definition of the right of children to education.
The definition that we find in the first article 0F this principle provides that, and the right of the child to education includes early childhood care and education.
Such an approach actually expands the scope of the future optional protocol.
In essence, such an approach combines educational activities with childcare, which is a completely separate sphere of great importance is the need to clearly distinguish between the free provision of educational programs of preschool education aspects of financing activities for the provision of food, supervision, care, household support, and other social services.
We believe that it's necessary to elaborate the draft first article under Principle one in such a way that the obligation of the state to provide free preschool education would be interpreted as the obligation to completely exempt parents from any payments related to supervision and care unless the state specifically assumes such an extended social obligation.
In addition, in order to ensure legal clarity, it is necessary to clearly spell out that the mentioned article deals with the definition of the child's right to pre primary education.
At the same time is necessary to clearly define the category of children who will fall under the scope of the future legally binding instrument.
This is important because most states have been regulating this issue at the legislative level.
It is essential to clarify the subject matter that is being regulated by the optional protocol and to avoid discrepancies in its interpretation.
It's particularly important to have a clear distinction between the types of education listed in the draft optional protocol, given the lack of relevant terminology in the Convention on the Rights of the child and any explanatory documents.
It is also unclear whether early childhood education is defined as a separate type of education included in the general concept of education as provided in the first article 0F Principle one or as a type of preschool education which corresponds to the title of the optional protocol.
We agree that the optional protocol should not repeat, revise, or re regulate the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of Child as provided in Principle two.
It is fundamentally important to ensure that the future instrument be limited in scope of regulation and focuses specifically on free public preschool and secondary education, the expansion of the subject matter of regulation to include issues already regulated by the Convention on the Rights of the Child or by other international legal instruments, including the International Covenant on economic and social and cultural rights may lead to uncertainty in the application of the law and complicate the implementation of international obligations.
We support Principle three on the inadmissibility of lowering the level of protection of the rights of the child provided by international law.
The provision in the future optional protocol of a provision that it does not affect the norms of national and international law.
That are more conducive to the implementation of the rights of the child is of positive importance since it makes it possible to maintain the higher level of guarantees already provided for by national legislation, including guarantees of universal access to and free education, measures of social support to certain categories of students, guarantees for the protection of the rights of children, implementation of educational activities, as well as existing mechanisms for the protection of the rights of minors.
Thank you.
I thank the Russian Foundation for their comments.
The next on the list is Slovenia.
Slovenia, you have the floor, please.
Okay.
Thank you very much, Chair Reporter.
Many thanks to the panelists as well for their very useful presentations.
We have a few comments and questions on the first draft principles one, two, three.
Well, first of all, let me begin by saying that, of course, Livia supports the overall objective of strengthening every child's access to inclusive, equitable and quality education.
At the same time, we believe that the first set of principles requires a lot of further clarification.
With regard to Principle one, We believe that terms such as early childhood care and education, pre primary education, public education, free education need to be very clearly defined.
The relevant age groups should also be specified, particularly given the considerable differences between the national education systems.
We would also appreciate clarification regarding the int and meaning of free education.
I think this was already mentioned by panelists as well as some speakers.
Particularly, would this refer only to the absence of tuition or participation fees? Would it also cover costs related to meals, transport, learning materials, extracurricular activities, and so on and so forth.
We also believe that it's equally important to distinguish clearly between an obligation to make at least one year of free public pre primary education available to every child and an obligation for every child to attend such a program.
For example, in Slovenia, preschool education is not compulsory.
Nevertheless, participation among, let's say 5-year-old children exceeds 95%, which demonstrates that participation can be achieved through accessibility, sufficient capacity, affordability without necessarily introducing compulsory attendance.
Similarly, regular upper secondary education in Slovenia is free of charge, but not compulsory.
With regard to Principle two, Slovenia generally supports the objective of avoiding the duplication, reopening or revision of provisions contained in the convention, and that any future instrument should complement the convention and its existing OPs while, of course, maintaining a clear and coherent relationship with the broader international legal framework on the right to education.
Slovenia also believes that when it comes to the non regression safeguard contained in Principle three, we should be particularly attentive that potentially new optional protocol does not imply that rights or obligations under recognized rights obligations, apologies already recognized under convention or other international instruments apply only to states that become parties to the new optional protocol.
Um, that's all for now.
We have comments under every single cluster discussion.
But as said before, I mean, we are sharing our views on the text that we have received now, but we reserve our position on the overall potential optional protocol throughout the discussions.
Thank you so much.
I thank the distinguished delegates from Slovenia and clearly, we of course welcome your engagements in each of the clusters as it relates to the individual principles.
Please keep your comments coming.
The next is the distinguished delegation from El Salvador.
El Salvador, please, you have the floor.
Thank you very much Chair Rapporteur.
This is the first time our delegation has taken the floor, so we want to congratulate you on your re election and we thank the panelists for their presentations.
We welcome the efforts made to make progress on possible optional protocol.
We believe there must be a very clear alignment of this instrument with the mandate established by the Human Rights Council in resolution 56 stroke five.
This being so, we believe it's important that the reference to care and attention to early childhood should not broaden the scope of the protocol over and beyond the mandate given by this resolution.
The operational provisions should focus on primary and free secondary education provided for in the parameters set by council.
We firmly support principle two, which we believe to be an essential safeguard to preserve the mandate of the working group.
The protocol The optional protocol should not reopen discussions or broaden provisions of the convention that lie over and beyond the mandate of resolution 565.
This will furthermore ensure legal certainty, ensure that the instrument will be consistent, and will make the negotiation process legitimate.
We welcome the non regression clause included in principle three.
We believe this will preserve those national legislation provisions and international commitments that are most favorable to ensure the effective realization of the right to education, while preserving the fundamental role of parents and the family to education and the comprehensive development of the child, bearing in mind applicable international rules and provisions.
We believe we should continue to focus on safeguarding existing protections.
This should not imply a broadening of the substantive mandate of the optional protocol.
To conclude, we reiterate our commitment to continue constructively to participate in these negotiations.
Thank you.
Thank you for your presentation.
We move to the next on the list and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia, please.
That will be followed by Peru.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
I would also like to thank the panelists for the presentations.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is looking forward to listening to the contributions of the stakeholders in general and the international and regional organizations and agencies in the working group to strengthen the formulation of the optional protocol based on consensus.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia reaffirms its commitment to constructively participating in the working group to realize a practical and balanced protocol that enhances the right to education, in line with the different legal systems and national capacities of the countries concerned and realizing International Consensus.
We would like to make the following observations on principles one and two, Mr.
Chair, given the fact that the shape, the general framework that will underpin this protocol with regard to principle one on the objectives of the optional protocol in line with resolutions 56/5, we welcome the agenda direction to provide public education free of charge in the primary and secondary education stages.
The commitments must be formulated in line with the different educational systems and the different institutional capacities of countries as well as national resources to ensure the enforceability and access to the protocol.
The kingdom would like to propose the formulation of the articles of the principle as follows, to provide public education in the pre primary stage and secondary stage free of charge.
Starting by not less than one year based on its resources and institutional frameworks.
With regards to article Principle two, we believe that this principle in substance transcends the mandate of this working group based on its mandate as per resolution 56/5, which does not provide for the exceptions stipulated in this principle.
Therefore, we propose that this principle should be removed completely.
Thank you.
The distinguished representative from Saudi Arabia.
The next is P to be followed by Cuba.
Thank you very much Chair.
Our thanks, first of all, to the panels for the very clear presentations made and relating to principles one to three, we can align our statement with those previous speakers who said that we must have a list of definitions in order to avoid interpretations that lie over and beyond this optional protocol.
It would also avoid future barriers and implementation.
For example, during the presentations, we heard references to school education, early childhood education, and pre primary education and all seem to refer to the same period in a child's life.
Having a list of definitions would be helpful in this respect.
On principle one, Peruvian regulations provide for broader provisions, including education before the first year of age.
We believe there should be sufficiently flexible drafting, which would allow us to use national legislation such as ours, which provides for broader rights than the ones enshrined in these principles.
Including such definitions would allow for broadening access to education and we have to think from the very earliest years of a child's life, including before a child is one.
On Principle two, we can see that there are no proposed, articles here.
We don't believe that there should be any change to existing scopes of existing standards and international rules.
We could go along with this.
This provision would avoid a new instrument lessening protection which currently exists.
Finally, on principle three, we can support this and believe that the reference to state party legislation should be broadly interpreted to ensure that it includes all applicable domestic laws, be it enshrined in the Constitution, regulations or any other norm which exists within a state.
We believe there should be clarification in the text which ensures that there be such broad interpretation of the language.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative for her statement.
We now move to Cuba to be followed by Egypt.
Senor President Chair Rapporteur, every child, boy and girl has the right to have quality, free universal education throughout their life.
Cuba supports strengthening international instruments to ensure that there is true access to the right to education, including by means of an additional optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the child.
Our state believes that a key part of any future international instrument should be guaranteed free public, primary and secondary education for all guaranteed by the states.
There must be a particular focus on early childhood as part of the right to education.
There's already broad global consensus on ensuring that these rights are truly brought to fruition.
We believe that 4.1 and 4.2 are a demonstration of what must be achieved.
We just now need to strengthen political will.
We welcome the principles which have been presented by the chair Rapporteur and Cuba believes that a future international instrument could have the following structure, one preamble, two goals and scope, three definitions, four state obligations, five international assistance and cooperation, and six final provisions.
In line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child itself, there must be recognition of the key role of the state as the main one responsible for the implementation of the provisions of a future instruction.
Participation of the family and the community cannot be seen as a replacement of the key responsibility of the state.
The international instrument must add to the CRC.
And its added value must be in developing and making specific the right to education in early childhood education and secondary education, thereby strengthening the implementation of the convention itself.
The best interests of the child must be mainstreamed throughout the document, and the instrument must expressly prohibit any form of discrimination or any convention any condition which prevents the right to education becoming a reality for all children.
Cuba is actively committed to participating in this working group and this is in line with our belief in promoting the right to education for all, especially in early childhood.
Thank you.
Yes.
I thank you as well.
We moved to Egypt to be followed by Belgium.
Egypt, do you have the floor, please.
Mr.
Chair Rapporteur, Egypt thanks you for presenting the revised key principles and appreciates your efforts in facilitating the working groups discussions.
Egypt considers these discussions part of the continuing exploratory phase to assess whether a genuine normative gap exists and whether an additional instrument is necessary.
The process should preserve the coherence of the existing legal framework, avoid duplication and fragmentation, while considering the implications of additional obligations and monitoring requirements, particularly amid the current UN liquidity crisis.
Should also respect differing national capacities, available resources, national contexts, and state sovereign authority to organize their educational systems.
Regarding Principle one, Egypt fully supports expanding access to quality education.
However, free secondary education is already addressed by Article 28 of the Convention and Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural rights.
The remaining challenges relate primarily to implementation, financing, infrastructure, and national capacity rather than to a normative gap requiring the restatement of existing obligations.
While education and care are closely related, they remain legally distinct.
Care varies across national systems and includes family, social, and health dimensions extending beyond education.
The text should therefore distinguish early childhood education from the broader concept of care and reflect the roles and responsibilities of parents and legal guardians under the convention.
The expression free for all also requires legal clarification.
It doesn't adequately reflect differences in national systems, level of development, and available resources or clarify whether free education includes indirect costs such as transport, books, uniforms, meal or prescribing at at least one year of free pre primary education that may not accommodate different national structures for early childhood education.
These considerations are particularly important for countries hosting millions of refugees and facilitating their access to national education services.
The significant responsibilities borne by host countries require predictable international cooperation, support, and burden sharing.
Regarding Principle two, Egypt supports preserving the integrity of the Convention and avoiding duplication and fragmentation.
This safeguard should apply not only to the convention, but to the broader international legal framework, especially the International Covenant to Economic, social and cultural Rights.
Any future text should avoid parallel formulations that could create interpretative uncertainty or present existing obligations arising only from a new instrument.
I assume we are just covering principle one word.
Three of them.
The last point for me is regarding Principle three, Egypt supports preventing regression.
The proposed language largely reflects Article 41 of the Convention and comparable provisions of its existing optional protocols, while it would preserve stronger protections under national or international law.
It would not create a new substantive standard or preventing existing obligations from being perceived as applicable only to parties to the new instruments.
Taken together, Principle 123 confirmed that the relevant obligations and safeguards are already largely contained in the existing legal framework.
Priorities should therefore be given to their effective implementation through financing, capacity building, technical assistance, and international cooperation.
I thank you.
I thank the Distinguished A of Egypt.
I now give the floor to, to Belgium to be followed by Canada.
Rapportur.
Firstly, I would also like to thank all the panelists for their very substantive intervention and also to you chair for facilitating this discussion.
As mentioned by the other colleagues, we think it's an important phase to continue further reflection on the issue that is in front of us.
As mentioned yesterday in our general statement, we support the underlying objectives as reflected in resolution 56 slash five and the mandate of the open ended intergovernmental working group.
However, respectfully, at this stage, we do not believe that the draft principles as currently drafted fully respond to that mandate.
The mandate entrusted to the working group was first to explore the possibility of elaborating and submitting a draft optional the right to education.
While we appreciate the significant efforts undertaken by the intergovernmental working group and which are reflected in this paper, we are of the view that at this stage, it does not provide a sufficiently balanced and objective assessment of the advantages and disadvantages associated with the proposed approach, nor does it adequately consider alternative ways of strengthening the realization of the right to education.
Instead, the paper appears to move directly towards providing a coherent and conceptional legal framework to guide the preparation of a draft optional protocol as if the first part of the mandate has been concluded without having been brought back to the intergovernmental working group.
While we fully support the efforts to advance the right to education, we remain concerned that the current approach may inadvertently create uncertainty regarding existing protections and established standards.
In addition, we believe further consideration could be given to how the proposal would interact with the existing framework, in particular, Convention on the Rights of the child, including with a view to avoiding potential overlap or duplication.
For these reasons, we believe that further discussion within the working group is warranted and in this regard, we suggest to adding a small addition to Principle one.
After that, we would like to add discussion on a possible optional protocol to complement the principle.
I thank you.
Thank you, Bergin.
I give the floor to Canada, please, Canada.
Chair, like my colleague before me, let me thank you for convening such a substantive panel this morning, let me congratulate and thank all the panelists.
We heard many thoughtful and compelling perspectives and if you may, I'd like to ask a question to the panel.
Throughout the presentation, I noted three themes particularly strongly.
First, the broadly shared experience of children, that non tuition costs remain a significant barrier to education.
That was expressed especially eloquently by the children themselves who are on the panel.
As an aside, I would be interested to hear whether those barriers are also important for primary education despite the existing clear language in the CRC.
Second, I noted the specific challenges faced by children with disabilities and the importance of ensuring that the right to education is realized in practice for all children.
Third, at a normative level, the argument that the international legal framework should reflect the broad consensus that exists regarding the importance of early childhood and secondary education.
I believe these points can help move our discussion forward and can take us beyond the question of whether or not a new protocol is the best approach and perhaps towards a discussion of what a protocol would need to achieve in order to constitute a meaningful and substantial step forward.
With that in mind, I'd like to ask a question, I think, especially for Professor Tudres recognizing the existing framework provided by the CRC, the IC ESCR, and the considerable body of interpretation and practice.
What would be the test for determining whether a future optional protocol represents a meaningful normative advance? I think we need to talk just about whether or not we have a protocol, but what kind of a protocol? Or to put differently, what would a future need to achieve for us to conclude that it represents enough of an advance to justify a new instrument? For example, with respect to secondary education, would a protocol need to move beyond the current framework of progressive realization in order to constitute such an advance? With respect to pre primary education, what, in your view would constitute the principal added value of the protocol? Thank you.
Thank you.
Those were very salient questions and I needed time to fully get them down.
We'll move to the next list of speakers, and we'll move to NGOs with Ecosx status.
On the list, we have a stitching Global Human Rights Defense form Mediterranean, promos to citation.
Yes, we'll start with form Mediterranean promotion to Son.
That will be followed by stitching Global Human Rights.
Form, you have the floor, please.
There's the forum for Human Rights on the floor.
They're not in the room.
Okay.
So I give the floor to Stitching Global Human Rights Defense, and they will be followed by Human Rights Watch.
S not in the room as well.
Next would be human rights W to be followed by education International.
Human Rights Watch, you have the floor, please.
Thank you, Chair.
International law on the right to free education is already fragmented.
A child's protection from financial barriers changes with their age.
The guarantee of free primary education is clear and immediate.
Free secondary education is treated at best as less urgent and free pre primary education is not explicitly mentioned.
The law is also already fragmented by which international or which regional treaty is invoked and which treaty body is reviewing it.
To the member states who have argued that international law already guarantees free pre primary and free secondary on the same terms as free primary education, I encourage you to examine how your own courts have interpreted your obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child on free education.
You may find that the position that you advance internationally does not align with how your courts have understood those obligations.
Another example of fragmentation.
Doing nothing or delaying is not a neutral decision.
It is a choice to preserve a fragmented system in which a child's entitlement to free education is weaker at age four or 16 than at age eight.
A well drafted optional protocol offers not fragmentation, but harmonization, one clear global standard of free education for all children that states can work toward.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been strengthened before.
The optional protocol on children in armed conflict raised the minimum age of conscription 15-18.
It did not fragment the convention because Article 38 already addressed children armed conflict.
It strengthened a standard that was no longer acceptable.
The same logic applies here.
The issue is not whether education is already a right.
It is that the current framework does not provide children, parents, policymakers, legislators, courts, treaty bodies, and advocates a clear enough standard regarding the obligation to remove cost barriers that exclude children from early learning and secondary education.
The proposed optional protocol is a tool that they need for the implementation we all seek.
Thank you.
I thank you guys watch for their statements.
Next is Education International to be followed by OD.
Education International, you have the floor, please.
Thank you, Chair.
Education International, the Global Union Federation that represents over 33 million teachers and education support personnel across 180 countries and territories, welcomes the ambitious scope and objectives of this optional protocol, strongly supports Principle one in particular and urges states to preserve the explicit commitment to free public, pre primary and secondary education.
The CRC establishes every child's right to education and the committee has already clarified this right extends to early childhood.
This optional protocol therefore provides an important opportunity to strengthen and make explicit the existing right and to address gaps, including in its realization.
In this context, the explicit recognition of free public education is both appropriate and necessary.
The CRC places responsibility for the realization of children's rights on states and the protocol can strengthen the means through which an existing rights can be universally and equally enjoyed.
Strong, well funded public education systems are essential to that objective.
This is particularly important in early childhood education, pre primary education, where chronic public underinvestment has fueled the expansion of private and commercial provision.
Evidence shows that market based provision can make access increasingly dependent on families' ability to pay, concentrate services not where they're most needed, but where they're most profitable, and deepen inequalities for children in disadvantaged communities.
We therefore emphasize the importance of retaining the commitment to free public, pre primary and secondary education as outlined in Principle one.
Thank you.
The fellow on the list is ODE.
OIL, you have the floor, please.
Thank you for your insights today and for this productive conversation.
I would like to raise an important concern.
Our contribution is not intended to derail the process, but rather to help avoid potential contradictions in the future implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Fourth Protocol.
States that have ratified the convention on the rights of the child have committed to making primary education compulsory and available free to all.
This commitment can be fulfilled through state run schools or through civil society initiative.
The way this commitment is formulated in the convention is coherent with parental rights and minority rights and respectful of the cultural dimension of the right to education, particularly for non mainstream groups.
This brings me to our concern.
The proposed draft of the protocol introduces an important nuance regarding the commitments concerning pre primary and secondary education.
According to the proposed text, these obligations would be limited to public education, which in many contexts refers to education provided exclusively by governmental actors.
We consider that this represents a revision of the existing commitment.
Until now, the obligation to provide free education has not been limited to education deliver by governmental actors.
With the optional protocol, many actors understood that this could be one of its main outcomes.
Many stakeholders, both state and civil society organizations have expressed the same concern in recent days, as well as previously during side events.
We therefore recommend removing the word public.
Finally, we would like to ask a question.
We have heard some actors argue that the word public does not change anything.
If that is indeed the case, then what is the purpose of keeping this word in the current draft? Thank you for your work and for this constructive dialogue.
Thank you very much, indeed.
That's the last speak on the list.
I come back to the panelists for very very brief reflection because we're really running out of time.
I'll start for my meeting tonight with Isla.
Miss Isla, please.
Thank you very much and thank you for all of the valuable interventions.
I want to address in particular the comment from the representative from Canada.
I think it's important in thinking about what is keeping learners with disabilities out of school, that some of the investments that are needed are not just for individuals, that yes, it's true that there needs to be some non tuition costs covered in terms of reasonable accommodation or in terms of supports to individuals.
But more importantly, in terms of transforming a system to be inclusive, teachers need to be prepared to teach a wide range of students, and that means a focus on pre service and in service training.
It means different kinds of teaching methods and the kinds of recommendations that come out in general comment four of the CRPD really lay out what the elements are that need to be available in order for all learners to be included.
I think that it's important in thinking about what it means to have a free and inclusive system, that not only to think about the investments that have to be made in individuals, but investments that have to be made in transforming systems so that the needs of all learners are met.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, miss Richlin, I give the floor to Professor Tres, please.
Excuse me.
Thank you very much to the states and to the NGOs for their contributions.
I similarly will respond to the question raised by Canada.
I would say a few brief comments.
First, a uniform standard throughout education from pre primary through secondary would in itself be a significant advance both at the international level but for what it means in terms of advocating domestically in each state to achieve a consistent standard.
Second, on the progressive realization question, That standard is ultimately a decision for states.
I see my role as offering my expertise based on more than 25 years of research and I'm happy to be in dialogue with any delegation.
But I think a If you compare on progressive realization, the progress we've made on primary education, which is free and compulsory, yet still subject to progressive realization, there's a dramatic difference in the progress there versus pre primary or secondary education.
That to me is evidence based explanation of what even under a progressive realization standard can be achieved by having a legal standard that insists on education being free.
But I'm happy to be in conversation more with anyone.
Thank you, Professor Todos.
I move to miss Russo.
Miss Russo, do you have any brief remarks? No.
Okay.
Thank you so much.
Then we move to the final panelists, miss Line, do you have any? Yeah, please.
Thank you, Chair.
I'll just share a few perspectives and also within the mandate of girlsmbrs I'll speak again a bit from the perspective of child marriage and without undermining at all, the really critical right of access to primary education is already enshrined.
I Evidence has actually shown that it's not in itself associated with lower risks of child marriage in most countries.
The real difference is secondary education.
None of the five countries with the highest child marriage prevalence has a secondary completion rate for girls above 15%.
In the top three countries, no more than 5% of girls finish secondary school.
Just to highlight again and bringing home the real importance in terms of the scope of this optional protocol.
In terms of the proposal for this instrument in itself as hard law.
We've seen how new laws and treaties can really make a real difference.
I've already pointed to the example of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in terms of primary education and how far that's come and almost universal.
We've also seen how in the decade following the adoption of the optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, nearly 20 countries have adopted or amended national legislation to raise their minimum age of voluntary recruitment to at least 18.
Um, another example is ILO Convention on Decent work for domestic workers that was adopted in 2011.
More than 70 countries have strengthened labor protections for domestic workers, and this has improved the lives of millions of people.
At the moment, many countries failed to guarantee truly free secondary education in law or policy.
1998-2023, the share of countries with 12 years of compulsory education rose only 8-26%.
So I think there's a real basis for the making the case that an optional protocol as the instrument to go forward with would truly make a difference and speaking briefly to some of the concerns and risks raised, and I would also say I think it's very important that we're raising them to test the robustness of the instrument that we're suggesting.
That's good process and due process.
On the age of children and definitional clarity, I The authoritative source on these matters has typically been the International Standard Classification of education from UNESCO, and this is for all stages of education through from pre primary, primary and secondary.
On the question of what is free and whether this is the same issue as for primary education, I think this is very much been interpreted within the committee on the rights of the child, U and their general comments and their jurisprudence and this optional protocol would provide a further strong mandate to allow the committee to continue to interpret that as it does for primary education, but also now for pre primary and secondary education.
Thank you.
Thank you very much Lane, Lana Todd, Professor Thord, miss Russo and miss Richer for your very much insightful presentations this morning.
We would have a few minutes technical break to prepare for the next panel.
Thank you again very much.
Okay.
Excellency's colleagues, we'll resume in the next 40 seconds.
I Excellencies, colleagues.
For this cluster two, we will move to principles four, five, six, seven, and eight.
The essentially forms the substantive elements of one.
I now move on to cluster two discussion, which are the substantive elements of one.
Adescent Principles 484 to eight.
I would now like to introduce our panelists, the child representatives from Asia Pacific States, Sana and child representative from Western European and other states world.
Another panelist is miss Kathleen Cowell.
Miss Kathleen Cowell is Vice President for the European Region, and miss Clara Batch, World Secty, World Organization for Early Childhood Education, or MEP.
Mr.
Bohn, Chakun, Director of Division for Policies and Lifelong Learning Systems UNESCO, and my esteemed Farah Shahid, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to Education.
I would like to invite delegates and participants who have not already pre registered for the list of speakers to register with the Secretariat in the room.
Registration for the list of speakers will close in 15 minutes.
I ask that delegates limit their interventions to 2 minutes when the list of speakers is open.
With that, I will now hand over to our first panelist, the most beautiful Sonia and the most handsome Thad to start the session.
Over to you, please.
Thank you, Chair Reporter.
Good morning, everyone.
My name is Anya and I'm from Indonesia.
I'm a child delegate from Asia Pacific.
Today, I would like to talk about why early childhood care and education should be part of every child's right to education.
Early childhood care and education is like a big umbrella.
Under this umbrella, babies and young children receive proper care to stay healthy, eat nutritious food, play and learn.
The early years are very important because children's brain develop rapidly, especially from birth to around 6-years-old.
This is why giving children proper care and education from an early age can help them grow into healthy, confident, and independent individuals.
Under this umbrella, there is also a pre primary education where young children can learn through play, exploring, and connecting with others.
At this age, children are naturally curious.
They observe everything around them and are excited to learn new things.
To play and learning, they can develop not only basic knowledge, such as letter or numbers, but also important social and emotional skills.
They learn how to communicate, cooperate, respect others, and show empathy.
That is why pre primary school should be free for every child.
Free preschool should mean that parents do not have to pay school fees or hidden costs.
This is especially important for children from families with limited financial resources.
Some families may see preschool as an additional expense and consider it less important than primary or secondary education.
But the truth is the preschool years are a golden foundation for a child development.
Government funding can help make sure that every child, regardless of their family's financial situation, has a fair start in life.
When children do not receive proper care and education, they may face many consequences.
They may lose opportunities to play and learn with other children.
They may miss opportunities to develop independence, social skills, and confidence.
They may also be left behind and may not have the opportunity to reach their full potential.
Every child deserves the chance to learn, play, explore, and grow in a safe and supportive environment.
Therefore, I believe that early childhood care and education must be recognized as a part of the right to education.
Quality early childhood education and care can give children the best start in life, help them become independent, develop important values, and support them in achieving their hopes and dreams.
Thank you.
Thank you, Sonia.
I want to talk about three things that don't usually get put in the same sentence.
Money, monitoring, and what education actually looks like underground.
But they are connected, and I think that connection matters more than people realize.
Start with resources.
Principle four talks about states using maximum available resources.
There was strong support for that principle in our consultations we organized with other children to discuss the key principles.
But children were also honest about catch.
Maximum available resources is still in the end, a political decision.
It's not a fixed number.
It's whatever government decides to call maximum.
That's exactly why some states will need financial and technical support and why states that can afford to provide it should.
Otherwise, this principle risks becoming a phrase that sounds strong on paper, but means whatever government wants it to mean in practice.
Which is exactly why monitoring Principle five can't be an afterthought.
Children are already engaged with monitoring under the CRC itself.
There's no reason the optional protocol should work any differently.
If we are serious about resources actually reaching children, someone has to be shaking that they do, and children should be a part of that checking, not just consulted about it, but actually involved in producing the data, the information, the benchmarks that could use to assess whether state is living up to its own obligations.
And when states prepare their official reports, children should be involved in preparing them too.
Because a report about children's education written entirely without children is missing the one perspective that actually knows whether it's true.
Resourcing without monitoring is just a promise and monitoring without resourcing has nothing to actually measure.
They only work together.
But there's a third piece and it's Principle seven, but I think it's overlooked because it sounds less urgent in money or accountability.
It's about pathways.
Not every child's education looks the same, and it shouldn't have to.
Academia.
The traditional classroom exam university track isn't for everyone, especially by the time you reach secondary school.
Some children's interests and aspirations point somewhere else entirely.
If this protocol only protects one version of what education looks like, then even a fully funded, fully monitored system could still fail a child whose path just doesn't fit that one model.
Here's how I put the three together and how it connects back to what Sania said about early childhood.
Free education isn't just about the number of government spends, and it isn't just about whether someone checks that spending afterward.
It's also about whether the education actually offered from the very earliest years right through to secondary school fits the child receiving it.
Get the resourcing wrong, and there's nothing to work with.
Get the monitoring wrong, and no one is accountable for what happens to it.
And get pathways wrong.
And you can tick every other box and still lose the child anyway.
Thank you.
Don't forget my request, please put the hands together for them.
We move to the next panelists, and I'll give the floor to miss Katherine Cowell, Vice President of the European region, and miss Clara Bartch WalscT World Orsi for Early Childhood Education.
Joint presentation.
I give both of you the floor, please.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Excellencies, distinguished delegates and dear children.
My name is Clara Bachti and I'm a preschool teacher working in a state kindergarten for the last eight years in Croatia's capital.
It is an honor to be speaking to you today, together with my colleague here, Professor Kate Carroll, on behalf of OMP, World Organization for Early Childhood, Children's Rights Organization working in 84 countries on behalf of children from birth to eight.
I did not come here as a diplomat.
I came here as someone who opens a classroom door every morning.
Let me tell you what I see through that door.
I see a child who arrives without breakfast, who needs a meal before she can learn anything else that morning.
I see a child whose mother tongue nobody else in the building speaks, but who deserves to be greeted in it anyway.
A child who has learned to be very quiet and very small and who is slowly learning that he does not have to be that way in our classroom.
None of these children are waiting for school to begin.
Their education has already begun.
It began the day they were born.
This is why the word terminology, a word that can sound so technical and so far away from a preschool classroom, actually matters more than anything else on the agenda this week.
Because when we say pre primary education, we describe one year, perhaps two, a classroom, a teacher, and a curriculum.
But when we say early childhood care and education, ECC, we describe something larger.
We describe health, nutrition, protection, well being, play, language, belonging, from birth to 8-years-old, not a waiting room before real school starts, right already in progress.
And people sometimes ask me to point to the moment where care ends and education begins, a question that was raised earlier.
I have to tell you that I've never been able to do it because when I wipe a child's nose before we return to a puzzle or when I turn counting into a rhythm or a clapping game, or when I sit with a frightened crying child waiting for the breathing to slow down before we return to whatever we were doing, I could not tell you which of those moments was caring for them and which was teaching them because they happen in the same motion.
This is not a gap in how we describe early childhood and it may be the truest thing that anyone could say about it.
In my kindergarten, in a room next to mine, it holds children not yet 2-years-old and we call it slitze, that's nursery.
And my colleagues there are not babysitters.
Yes, they rock children to sleep, but they also read to them.
They also sing to them.
They follow their first attempt at work and sometimes even walking.
They're trained also to notice when something needs a closer look.
A delay, a difficulty, a sign of harm, and they know that raising it early can change the rest of the child's life.
We all know that children at this stage are already building language and detachment and they already are building first foundations for curiosity and trust.
If this protocol only reaches to age three, it will legally recognize my work and legally erase theirs.
The global enrollment rate for one year of learning before primary school actually fell 20-2022.
In countries where we do have data, only 55% of children in the poorest households are developmentally on track by the age four, compared to 78% in the richest.
The gap is not created in pre primary classroom.
It's created long before child ever reaches my door.
If this protocol recognizes only the final year before primary school, it will arrive one year too late for children who need it the most.
There is also a cost to waiting.
We have watched in other international processes, ECC narrow quietly down to a single guaranteed year of pre primary provision.
Five or six years with afore mentioned conditions before that seed year arrives cannot be repaired by 12 years of education no matter how well designed.
Continuity here is not a language reserved for a treaty preamble.
It is a difference between a right that arrives early enough to matter and one that arrives after the harm it was meant to prevent.
In my own classroom, a child doesn't become a different person when they change room from a toddler room to a pre primary room.
She is still learning to trust adults, still learning her own language, and still building a foundation that either holds or does not for the rest of her life.
The right to education should not have a gap in it, not at age one, not at age two, not anywhere between birth and the school's door.
I know that my own classroom is only one classroom, in one setting, in one city, in one country.
But through OIPS network, early childhood educators across every region I've had a chance to speak with describe the same moments I gave you a moment ago.
The details of the room change, the pattern does not.
Decade ago, this organization declared that children had the right to primary education, free primary education at a time when a majority of the world's children never saw the inside of a classroom.
That declaration, backed by political will, changed the arc of hundreds of millions of lives.
This is why OMP asks this working group to recognize clearly in the text of the protocol that the right education begins at birth and that free Public pre primary education is not a separate gift, but a visible final stretch of a right that was already there.
I will now hand over to my colleague, Professor Carroll, who will speak to how this bears directly on the key principles this cluster is examining.
Chair Rapporteur, Excellencies, distinguished delegates and our child representatives.
Thank you, Clara.
I am the OMEP Vice President for the European region and I work in a university in the UK.
Like her, 35 years ago, I entered my early childhood care and education classroom in Australia.
Today, I speak from the experience of being a parent, a practitioner, a teacher, a researcher, and a teacher educator.
It is my privilege to stand for OMEP and elucidate the key definitions before this working group.
I'd also like to thank Sonya and Tron, our child panelists who really prepared the way for my contribution today.
Thank you very much.
Today, this chamber is working through cluster two of the draft key principles four through 28.
I want to show you why the distinction that Clara has just described is not a detour from that work.
It is the hinge upon which it turns.
Let me be precise about what is and is not, and let's settle it here.
There is no internationally accepted definition of early childhood care and education yet, and it doesn't exist anywhere in international law.
That absence is not a reason for this working group to leave the question for another day.
It is the reason this working group is the right body at the right moment to resolve it.
We understand that this is not a settled question.
Among the submissions this working group has received, there are diverging views on whether care belongs within the protocol scope at all.
We have heard such questions and comments from states this morning and I hope that I'll be able to make some clarification on that matter for you.
Clara has just provided examples as why it cannot be separated out.
In a child's earliest years, care and education are not two adjacent services sitting side by side.
They are the same reality, described from two perspectives.
This is not merely a question confined to education either.
In those years, learning cannot be separated from whether a child is fed, housed safely, or free from illness.
These are not concerns adjacent to a child's right to learn.
They are its preconditions.
Treating early learning as a matter apart from health nutrition, and shelter does not reflect an actual child's life.
It only reflects how our states ministries and some of our other treaties happen to be organized.
Principle four now calls for international cooperation to realize free early childhood care and education, free public pre primary education, and free public secondary education.
Naming and defining these three elements in one sentence and strengthening in the revised text means that it moves from being a responsibility to an obligation and O MEP welcomes this tightening.
But the same risk survives it.
Cooperation mechanisms tend to fund what is easiest to measure.
Pre primary enrollment is measurable and already tracked.
Birth to three care, nutrition, health protection, responsive caregiving and learning conditions is not.
Without a shared definition, international cooperation to realize early childhood care and education will quietly become international cooperation in pre primary education alone and the youngest and most vulnerable children will once again be funded last.
We should ask ourselves what gets funded and what gets forgotten.
The creation of law does more than establish obligations for states.
It shapes the priorities of the entire global financing architecture, development partners, international financial institutions, foundations and donors, look to international commitments when determining where resources should flow.
If this protocol clearly recognizes early childhood education and care from birth, it tells the world that early child is not a charitable aspiration, but a legal and developmental priority.
In doing so, it ensures that financing follows rights rather than rights being limited by what happens to be financed.
Principle five asks for effective monitoring without creating new reporting burdens, but you cannot monitor a right that has not been defined.
The path of least burden is for the states to continue reporting what they already report and call that ECCE or early childhood care and education.
A single shared definition attached to existing reporting under Article 44 would cost nothing administratively and would close this gap.
Principle seven now states plainly that the protocol will acknowledge the importance of lifelong learning, but include in the chair rapporteur's own words, no substantive provision on this.
We understand why and this working groups mandate under Principle two is necessarily narrow and a freestanding obligation on lifelong learning may sit outside it.
But this is exactly why the definition of early childhood care and education matters more, not less.
If lifelong learning will exist only as a preambular sentence, then the only place in this entire instrument where learning begins at birth can become a binding and operative idea is within the definition of early childhood care and education itself in principle one.
OMP asked this working group not to let Principles one and seven to quietly cancel each other out, one gesturing towards lifelong learning without substance, and the other capable of carrying that substance if only it is defined broadly enough to reach back to birth.
Principle six rightly recognizes the historic role of children's consultations in shaping this protocol and OMEP asks only that this same principle is carried forward into the implementation.
Participation must be understood to include children who are too young to sit in a consultation room expressed through play reactions and responses and through the relationships that this treaty must protect.
Principle eight will include a communications procedure allowing individuals and groups to bring complaints of alleged violations directly to the committee on the rights of the child.
This is not a small addition, it means that one day a family may bring a claim to their state who failed to fulfill a right protected by this protocol and the committee will have to determine on the facts before it, what does early childhood care and education actually mean? If this working group leaves that question undefined now, it will be leaving the committee to decide later case by case without the benefit of collective expertise gathered in this room this week.
Legal certainty, consistency and predictability, the very language underpinning Principle eight depend on us resolving this now, not deferring it to future litigation.
We are aware that the working group has heard harder questions, does this protocol duplicate law that already exists? Does it risk regression from standards already achieved? We take both of these concerns very seriously.
On duplication, no binding international instrument explicitly names early childhood care and education today.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child guarantees free primary education.
So does the International Covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights.
Neither extends beyond binding guarantee into early childhood years.
What exists for early childhood care and education is interpretation and political commitment, not obligation.
One cannot duplicate a binding obligation that has never existed.
On regression, the risk is real and OEP will not pretend it doesn't exist.
A protocol that defines early childhood care and education too narrowly or that limits what could be brought before this committee could freeze some children's rights below what certain national systems already provide.
This is exactly why OMP joins those calling for an explicit non regression clause so the protocol becomes a floor for every state and a ceiling for none.
We anticipate the concerns that this will raise and some of you in the room may ask whether naming such a broad scope risks diluting its focus or will it discourage ratification by the states when even the narrower goal of one year of free pre primary education remains only partially achieved.
OMEP's answer is not to expand what is immediately enforceable or obligatory.
It is simply to ensure that what is named in this protocol's definitions and cooperation provisions is not narrower than the right itself.
A clear, broad definition costs nothing to write, but it costs everything to omit.
OMEP therefore asks this working group to anchor cluster two cooperation, monitoring, participation, lifelong learning and procedure alike in one shared definition rooted in principle one, that early childhood care and education begins at birth and that free public pre primary education is at its clearest and most measurable expression, not an outer boundary.
A year ago, this working group heard that this process is not about inventing a new right, but clarifying one already affirmed.
We say it again today deliberately because cluster two is where clarity either takes shape or it does not principle by principle and not in abstract.
OMEP stands ready to support this working group's continued work through our national committees in 84 countries and our partners across every region represented here.
In conclusion, the question before this working group is not whether children begin learning at birth, they do.
The question is whether this protocol will recognize this reality.
Every principle discussed this week, cooperation, monitoring, participation, accountability, ultimately depends on who we understand the child to be and when we understand their rights to begin.
And if we leave early childhood education and care undefined, we leave the youngest children invisible.
If we narrowly define it, we leave them behind.
But if we define it clearly from birth, we create a foundation on which every other provision of this protocol can stand.
Those children whose rights are at stake are not waiting for our debates to conclude.
They're being born today Their development cannot be postponed and their rights cannot be deferred.
Let us ensure that this working group, when it is remembered the work that's done this week, it is remembered for making the youngest children visible in international law.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Professor Coll and miss Basch for your presentations.
They are a thorough reflection of the real issues as they affect the clusters that we are discussing.
I thank you again very much for those presentations.
I now give the floor to Mr.
Bohn, Chacon, the Director of the Division for Policies and Lifelong Learning Systems at UNESCO.
Mr.
Chacon, you have the floor, please.
Thank you, Chair Distinguished Chair, Rapporteur, Excellencies, delegates and colleagues.
Thank you for the invitation to reflect on how the right to education from the earliest years can be understood through the lens of lifelong learning.
Let me make four points today.
First, the right to education is a right throughout life, not a right confined to childhood or to primary education.
Education is a fundamental human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirming the UNESCO 1960 Convention Against Discrimination Education, the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Importantly, these instruments have never in principle or in law limited the right to education to children or to primary education or primary schooling.
The International Covenant and UNESCO 1960 convention affirm its application to all individuals.
This point to something fundamental.
We should not think of educational rights as a collection of separate entitlements, one for early childhood, another for school, another for higher education, another for adults.
We should see them as a continuum, a right that extends from the earliest years throughout the life course.
The concept of lifelong learning reinforces this understanding.
It is explicitly recognized in an international legally binding Human Rights instrument in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which call for inclusive education at all levels and lifelong learning.
UNESCO's Global Convention on the recognition of qualifications concerning higher education defines lifelong learning as encompassing formal, non formal and informal learning across the lifespan.
Lifelong learning is not simply an education policy concept.
It gives concrete expression to the continuity of the right to education.
Chair, Excellency's colleagues, my second point is that this continuum begins at the very start of life.
Col is just reaffirming that.
Inequalities accumulated early can shape education opportunities for decades to come.
Early childcare and education is therefore not an optional addition to the education system.
It is where the continuum begins.
The UNESCO UNICEF 2024 global reports remind us that around 90% of the brain development occurs in the first five years of life and the high quality early interventions can generate substantial long term returns.
Yet access to these foundations remains deeply unequal.
The UNESCO Global moratorium Report knows that only around 60% of primary students globally have received at least one year of pre primary education.
273 million children, adolescents and young people remain out of school.
These are not simply statistics about different stages of education.
They tell us something about the continuity of opportunity across the life course.
What happens in the early years affects what happens later in school, in higher education in the workplace, in adult learning in life.
The OCD 23 surveys of adult skills, for example, found that literacy stagnating or declining in almost all participating countries with the sharpest declines among adults with less than upper secondary education.
Too often, therefore, education risks reproducing inequalities established in early years rather than correcting them.
This is why a lifelong learning perspective matters.
It takes us not only whether people have access to education in particular moment, but whether they have meaningful opportunities to learn and progress throughout their lives.
My third point is that access is where the journey begins, but it cannot be where the journey ends.
We should recognize the enormous progress that has been made by the international community.
There are now around 1.4 billion students enrolled in primary and secondary education globally.
Since 2000, enrollment in primary and secondary education has increased by 327 million, around 3% increase.
Completion rates have also improved substantially from 77% to 80% in primary education, 60-78% in lower secondary, and 37-61% in upper secondary education.
These achievement matters and we need to highlight them.
They also remind us that expanding system is not the same as completing the journey.
After declining substantially 2000-2015, the global out of school population has increased for seven consecutive years, reaching 273 million 2024.
And the current rates of progress, the world will not achieve 90% upper secondary completion until 2105 years.
So we are very far from what we aimed at.
This tells us that the channel is not simply to open the doors of the classrooms.
It is to ensure that people can enter, remain, complete and benefit from education.
This things brings me to an issue that is fundamental to the right to education, quality and relevance.
Access to a classroom means little if learners do not acquire the knowledge, skills and competencies they need to participate fully in society and to navigate changing economies and technology.
This is also why teachers are central to the realization of the right to education.
My team estimates that 44 million additional teachers will be needed globally by 2030 to achieve universal primary and secondary education, including 31 million for secondary education alone.
This is a universal issue.
The teacher shortage is universal issue is not related to developing economy or developed economies.
So we cannot speak credibly about universal education without speaking about the teachers who make education possible, nor we can speak about education without discussing what skills, knowledge, and wider competencies we will need in AI era.
How we will ensure that all learners will acquire those skills and the timeliness of this learning, given the fast changing world impacted by technology, demography, climate change, societal and demographic backsliding changes on the world of work and other challenges.
Nor can we speak about lifelong learning without investing in people, institutions, and learning environment that sustain it.
Quality relevance and inclusion must therefore stand alongside access.
My fourth and last point is that we must now make the lifelong learning continuum operational and make it right in practice.
A continuum cannot remain only a principle.
It means policies, institutions, and financing that allow people to move between different learning opportunities throughout their lives.
UNESCO is advancing this agenda through the work on the evolving right to education.
The initiative provides an important platform in this regard.
It examines how the legal framework can respond to contemporary realities while preserving the fundamental principle that education is a right for all throughout life.
The aim is to translate the guiding principle of lifelong learning into concrete opportunities.
But there is one condition that underpins all of them.
Investments.
A right to education throughout life requires investment throughout life.
As the SDG four steering committee has highlighted in its work on financing the right to education for all, without sustained and equitable financing, lifelong learning cannot become a right in practice.
Today, the learning crisis is deepened by a financing crisis.
113 countries spend more on debt servicing than on education.
We estimate that annual SDG four financing gap for low and low middle income countries is about 97 billion This is also why the broader international policy framework matters.
From the Ancient Declaration to the Santiago Consensus and Civilia Comp promisso, there is a growing recognition that education must be pursued in a more comprehensive and lifelong way and that financing of education should be at the center of the global agenda.
Chair, Excellency distinguished delegates, let me conclude with a simple proposition.
The right to education should not be in sued as a series of separate doors that open at different moments in a person's life.
It is a continuum.
It begins in the earliest years when the foundation for learning and development are established.
It continues through school, higher education, and the world of work, and it extends into adulthood through formal, no formal and informal learning.
But for that continuum to be real, we must do more than expand access.
We must ensure quality, we must ensure relevance, we must ensure inclusion, and we must ensure sustained and equitable investment because access to education is where the journey begins, but it cannot be where the journey ends.
Our collective task is therefore to make lifelong learning not simply an aspiration, but a right that every person can exercise at every stage of life.
And we have a great opportunity as we start consultation and shaping the education post 2030 agenda, your deliberations and the vision will be needed in the global region and national consultation we are envisaging for the post 2030 agenda.
They should be also informed by these processes and the work that you are conducting should be also informed by these processes.
I thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much indeed, Mr.
Chuckl.
I do take note of the four points you indicated on the right to education for all, and I particularly take note of the fact that the right to education is a single unbroken continuum and that the state is the guarantee is a guarantor for this path.
Yesterday when I was making my concluding remarks, I made reference to the statistics that UNSCO provided following its 26 report.
At least you have referred to that, document again.
I mean, clearly, That goes to show you that what you heard from me yesterday is a true legal and the statistics is indeed correct.
We are not making progress.
We are not making progress, and the task is in our hands to ensure that this working group provides the basis to correct what is really not going on right.
Thank you so much for your presentation, and we'll have our final panelist, miss Fard Shahid, the special Reporter, on the right to education.
And hopefully, if she's able to complete before 1:00, then we'll have the opportunity to interact.
Otherwise, I'm afraid we'll have to wait until we resume for the afternoon session, but please, miss F, take your time and deliver, please.
Now, thank you so much, Your Excellency.
I will try and finish before 12, of course.
But before I turn to the principles, I want to congratulate our youngest delegations, both those who are present in the room with us yesterday and today, but also for all of those who spoke online for their incisive reflections, insights, and concerns which really echo the concerns and issues that I hear with every children all over the youth that I engage with regarding the barriers to their right to education.
Well done, our youngest people.
Summarizing, and I apologize if I missed some of what they said yesterday, the indirect and hidden costs and the diversity of realities and barriers confronted, which included poverty and physical locations, belonging to indigenous refugee or migrant communities.
Different cultural backgrounds, linguistic or ethnic groups, having different learning needs as children living with disabilities or neurodivergent learners, of gender exclusive realities, and the sad realities of armed conflict, of digital divides which seem to be increasing, and most importantly, the need to feel safe in learning environments.
Fully agree with their recommendation to define exactly what free education actually means.
This is what I heard them say yesterday.
Perhaps the Child right Committee can consider a general comment on what actually free education would mean for differently situated children as the right soldiers.
For instance, this would in terms of children living with disabilities, have to include work with their parents and their communities as well, not just with the children.
My question here is, and unfortunately, Your Excellency, I do not see how an optional protocol will resolve the basic issues our key rights holders have so crucially identified.
And I think this is something the working group has to think about in detail.
Turning to the principles, Principle four, of course, resonates with my position, as you know, the international cooperation must not and cannot dilute domestic obligations and that while assistance is important, particularly for developing countries, the central duty remains with states to mobilize the maximum available resources, a duty which I underline is already identified in the Child Rights Convention, Article 4, and in the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural Rights.
But also, this obligation of states includes tackling inequalities and prioritizing the most marginalized children so that in fact, no one is left behind.
In terms of domestic resource mobilization, I think it's important for discussions to bear in mind the conclusions of my latest report for the General Assembly, which is that many states are greatly constrained by sanctions and debt repayments, which often obliges them to put on hold further developing their educational systems or even canceling existing plans.
We've just heard from UNESCO the figures that so many countries spend more on debt servicing than they do on education itself.
I therefore believe that when we have austerity measures, when we have debt servicing and other measures that are there, the first things to be cut are social sector rights.
Unfortunately, that is primarily health and education, and we've also heard how health is immediately related to your learning possibilities.
Therefore, I believe that ensuring the right to education at all levels from birth throughout life depends on reforming the international financial architecture so that it prioritizes human rights and human flourishing over mere economic growth.
I'm really glad that Principle five seeks to provide effective monitoring without creating additional administrative burdens.
But I am very conscious, as I said yesterday, that there is already given the financial constraints the United Nations is working under already shortened time allocated for review by the Child right Committee and other committees, and this may further be reduced.
But also, I'm conscious of the burden that according to the 2023 non paper on the co facilitation process of rationalization and efficiency of the Human Rights Council, which is prepared by the co facilitators, Thailand and Spain, some 58% of delegations have just one to two officers assigned to follow the Human Rights Council and three quarters of these delegations consider this is insufficient to manage the current responsibilities.
The priority workload they say is the most difficult, is managing to attend informal meetings then followed by attending formal meetings.
I also want to reiterate that as I said yesterday, first, many countries have taken action to ensure free early childhood care and education, pre primary and secondary education without any optional protocol.
We heard yesterday the example of Georgia, but also, I would like to appreciate Sierra Leone radical inclusion initiative for children living with disabilities, which is really quite amazing.
Secondly, I want to emphasize that the existing practice of the Child right Committee has in fact catalyzed a lot of improvements in state practices.
For example, in terms of early childhood care and education and pre primary education, concluding observations have led to significantly increased budgets allocated to early childhood programs, expanding early childhood development programs to reach the vast majority of five to six years olds, introducing pre primary education for children aged three to five, and prioritizing early learning as a standalone focus, explicitly including preschool expansion in educational reforms to improve quality, and reviewing early childhood care and education policy and introducing training for early childhood educators and caregivers, increasing the availability of free and affordable early childhood care for all children, guided by progressive realization of immediate and existing obligations.
Similarly, the general comment number 13 of the committee on economic, social and cultural rights on the right to education has also led many states to introduce or expand pre primary programs as part of basic education in French, education du base.
As I've stated, I think we need to further develop interpretation and elaborate what basic education encompasses today.
This must include early childhood care and education as well as pre primary education, given the incontrovertible evidence of all research that high quality early learning and care is linked to cognitive linguistic, social, emotional, and regulatory skills along with long term development impacts that have the greatest benefit for the most disadvantaged children.
But we've just heard from OMP, and I would agree that you cannot separate out care from education, especially as you get to the younger groups, and I don't think we have sufficient focus on that.
This understanding of where to begin and how important it was is from birth to early childhood.
It is reflected in the general comment number nine on Article 11 of the African Charter on the rights and welfare of the child, which, and I quote, expands the meaning of basic education to include early childhood development and education.
Separately, all research confirms that early learning is aided not just by good quality programs, but by stimulating and safe home environments.
And these, of course, then concern many issues which are beyond an optional protocol, such as we've heard from OMEP also, children arriving without breakfast, illnesses that could be avoided.
All of this is very important to early childhood learning and care.
I have one further concern regarding early childhood pre primary education.
UNSCO data shows many states have proactively embraced early childhood care and education and pre primary education without waiting for a specific legal instrument.
Globally, as we heard, more than 60% of children are already in some form of educational program the year before primary school begins.
The issue is really the reliance on private providers for such care.
In some countries, it's as high as 80 to 90%.
We also have that we've heard just now, 55% of poor households do not have access to such services.
This raises issues of equitable, affordable, and quality options that reach all children regardless of learning pathways, family income, identity, or location.
Furthermore, I've recently been quite shocked by research that showcases the interests of private equity firms and other for profits in early childhood care and education and pre primary education.
For example, in the US, United States, eight of the 11 largest chains of childcare providers catering to 1 million children in 2024 were private equity firms.
In the UK, private equity firms and other for profit companies were looking after more than 1,000 nurseries catering to more than 800,000 children.
In 2022, more than doubling the number of children and nurseries being taken care of for profit institutions than the year before in 2021.
Indeed, private equity firms and other for profits see all other forms of education, including special needs, education, and sports, as well as all levels of education as profitable investments.
This has several problems, one, which is it hollows out public education systems using public funds and money for it.
But then you also have so many of these firms then declaring bankruptcy and leaving the poor without any services at all, and this often happens overnight.
There's inequity there.
In terms of principle seven, I acknowledge education, which acknowledges education is the right to lifelong learning.
I'm happy that it's there, but I'm really not sure that a preambular paragraph will be sufficient given the interconnectedness, which we've heard repeatedly from the experts here, of different levels of education, growth, and stimulation, and the complexities of early childhood care and education, as I have outlined and other panelists have done so here.
And what will we then do about early childhood care and education? Is this not covered by the present optional protocol? Will we get into yet another optional protocol, or do we go down a different pathway, which leads to the continuum of the right to education from birth throughout life.
Similarly, I appreciate that Principle six acknowledges the role of consultations with, participation of, and substantial contribution of children.
But I strongly believe child participation should not be reduced to a preambular acknowledgment.
As the Special Rapporteur, I believe much more is needed.
Children's views should help shape the substance, the implementation, the monitoring, and the follow up of the protocol itself.
This is exactly what I heard the child delegates who are present and also our future exactly say yesterday and again repeated today.
Principal eight, I think, is what can be brought forward.
I will not get into too many details, but I think what complaints can be brought forward, you must ensure the mechanisms are there for children to reach out and report directly what is happening.
As always, to me, the real question is how best our actions and limited resources can ensure that all children, regardless of who they are, where they are, and what their learning needs may be, fully enjoy their human right to education from birth onwards to the end of life in dignity and fulfillment of their potentials that will decide not only their future, but the future of the world itself.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, indeed, miss Fedr Shahid.
And as you can see, we've endeavored to provide inclusive, divergent views to allow you to have a clear assessment of the issues and put you in a better position and informed position when you make your determination as you proceed with this session.
I thank all panelists for their contribution.
We only have barely 4 minutes.
Thank you so much for meeting your time, miss Saida.
We have barely 4 minutes to the close, but I think we can take one state for general comments on this panel.
I think we have a total of about eight states, but please don't worry when we resume in the afternoon will certainly give you the opportunity.
I would have the panelists up here, so they will respond if you have questions for them.
But I have just one state that I would accommodate, and that is the Russian Fedation.
Please, you have the floor.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
At the outset, I would like to join you and thank the panelists for very substantive presentations and for presenting the different points of view related to the advisability of elaborating another legally binding instrument.
As far as the cluster related to these principles, namely principles four through eight, would like to share the following thoughts.
The Russian Federation supports Principle four related to strengthening international cooperation related to early childhood care and education, free public preschool education and free public secondary education.
Provided that states remain responsible for implementing the relevant obligations and the voluntary nature of any financial assistance to the educational systems of other countries.
We agree with principle five that monitoring the implementation by member states of their obligations under the optional protocol should be built into the existing reporting system under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Such an approach will not create yet another additional international monetary body does not require Another independent additional periodic report and reduces the administrative burden on competent national authorities.
At the same time, we have to clearly define the information that the committee may ask of countries With regard to inclusion of Principle six, the possibility to include it in the text would only be possible if references are made on the leading role played by parents and ensuring the best interests of the child, as well as respect for age, psychological, and other characteristics of children.
In the context of any future optional protocol, we cannot support principal seven related to lifelong learning because it may become a vague legal obligation.
Despite the fact that the idea of recognizing the importance of lifelong learning is generally consistent with international sustainable development goals and Russian approaches to development of education, the optional protocol should be limited to regulating free public preschool and secondary education.
Any other approach may lead to broadening the scope of legal regulations and This will lead to us going beyond the mandate of the intergovernmental working group provided something that is included in the relevant resolutions of the Human Rights Council, the recognition of the competence of the committee on the rights of the child to receive and consider communications related to alleged violations of any future protocol should be voluntary as provided for by Principle eight.
The participation of a state party in the work under the optional protocol should not automatically imply the recognition of the competence of the committee to receive and consider individual communications.
Thank you.
I thank the Russian Federation for their comments and clearly, we barely have a few seconds to 1:00 P.M.
And this will bring us to the close for the morning session.
I'd like to thank all panelists, including you, the various members of the delegations, for your continued and constructive engagement with this process.
We'll resume in the afternoon and I will continue with this panel as well.
For those of you who hadn't the opportunity to provide and submit your questions and comments, for them to respond to them.
I hereby close and adjourn this session.