Compulsory Curricula and Human Rights: A Revised Framework for Balancing Competing Interests

This paper assesses the effectiveness of current legal standards in
resolving rights-based disputes arising from compulsory curricula in
schools, an issue of growing significance as such teaching expands in the
areas of sexuality, relationship and religious education. Focusing on
Article 2 of Protocol 1 (P2-1) of the European Convention on Human
Rights, it critiques the current reliance on the ‘objective, critical, and
pluralistic’ (OCP) standard, examining its alignment with the core purpose
of P2-1: preventing state monopolisation in education through
safeguarding qualified parental choice. The analysis identifies
shortcomings in P2-1 case law, particularly the subjective nature of
determining when teaching is OCP, the negation of parental objections
and the neglect of children’s rights in the assessment process. To address
these issues, the paper proposes a revised review framework which
prioritises a justification test that recognises parental concerns, reduces
the reliance on public interest justifications and acknowledges the
legitimacy of children's rights as grounds for limiting parental objections.
The paper argues that this refined approach better aligns with the
article’s foundational purpose whilst fostering an enlarged space for the
balanced consideration of competing interests and rights in educational
controversies.