CONSEJO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS - Informe A HRC 5941 Add 1

GE.25-05621 (S) 170425 280425 Consejo de Derechos Humanos 59º período de sesiones 16 de junio a 11 de julio de 2025 Tema 3 de la agenda Promoción y protección de todos los derechos humanos, civiles, políticos, económicos, sociales y culturales, incluido el derecho al desarrollo Visita a los Estados Unidos de América Informe de la Relatora Especial sobre el derecho a la educación, Farida Shaheed Resumen La Relatora Especial sobre el derecho a la educación, Farida Shaheed, visitó los Estados Unidos de América del 29 de abril al 10 de mayo de 2024. El propósito de la visita era reunir información de primera mano sobre la efectividad y el disfrute del derecho a una educación gratuita, de calidad e inclusiva para todos, y entablar un diálogo al respecto con el Gobierno y otros interesados y ofrecerles recomendaciones. La Relatora Especial examinó la forma en que el Gobierno federal y los gobiernos estatales trabajan para garantizar el acceso sin discriminación a una educación de calidad para todos, en especial para los grupos más marginados de la sociedad. También pres tó atención a las libertades académicas en las instituciones educativas de todos los niveles y a la cuestión de la seguridad en las escuelas. La Relatora Especial felicita a los Estados Unidos por su sólido marco jurídico, que prevé una amplia protección de los derechos civiles y confiere a los tribunales un importante papel en la protección del acceso equitativo a la educación, a pesar de que el derecho a la educación no esté expresamente reconocido en la Constitución. Uno de los principales puntos fuertes del sistema educativo de los Estados Unidos es su notable divers idad y flexibilidad:

papel en la protección del acceso equitativo a la educación, a pesar de que el derecho a la educación no esté expresamente reconocido en la Constitución. Uno de los principales puntos fuertes del sistema educativo de los Estados Unidos es su notable divers idad y flexibilidad: ofrece un amplio abanico de programas e itinerarios de aprendizaje que responden a una gran diversidad de intereses, estilos de aprendizaje y objetivos profesionales, lo cual permite a los estudiantes adaptar su educación a sus necesidades particulares. No obstante, el sistema educativo presenta desigualdades sistémicas en lo que se refiere al acceso y a la calidad, en especial en el caso de las comunidades con bajos ingresos y marginadas, que se manifiestan en una financiación desigual debido a la depen dencia de los impuestos locales sobre la propiedad, una disciplina punitiva, que afecta de forma desproporcionada a los estudiantes negros y morenos, y un uso excesivo de los exámenes normalizados. La creciente privatización de la educación supone una amen aza para la integridad de la enseñanza pública, mientras que la falta de un apoyo adecuado en materia de salud mental, la escasez de docentes y las malas condiciones laborales socavan el bienestar

El resumen del presente informe se distribuye en todos los idiomas oficiales. El informe propiamente dicho, que figura en el anexo, se distribuye únicamente en el idioma en que se presentó.

Naciones Unidas A/HRC/59/41/Add.1

Asamblea General Distr. general 14 de abril de 2025

Español Original: inglésA/HRC/59/41/Add.1 2 GE.25-05621 de los estudiantes y los resultados del aprendizaje. Las injerencias políticas, las leyes de

Asamblea General Distr. general 14 de abril de 2025

Español Original: inglésA/HRC/59/41/Add.1 2 GE.25-05621 de los estudiantes y los resultados del aprendizaje. Las injerencias políticas, las leyes de censura discriminatorias, las prohibiciones de libros y otros atentados contra la libertad académica limitan aún más el acceso a perspectivas diversas y a la refle xión crítica, dando lugar a lo que varios interlocutores han calificado de efecto disuasorio. Las protestas estudiantiles son objeto cada vez con más frecuencia de criminalización, vigilancia y medidas disciplinarias, que reprimen la libertad de expresión y la participación cívica. Si no se llevan a cabo reformas sistémicas de la financiación, la gobernanza y la evaluación, estos retos seguirán mermando el acceso equitativo y el papel más amplio de la educación en el fomento de la democracia y el progreso social.A/HRC/59/41/Add.1

GE.25-05621 3 Anexo Informe de la Relatora Especial sobre el derecho a la educación, Farida Shaheed, acerca de su visita a los Estados Unidos de América

I. Introduction

1. The Special Rapporteur on the right to education, Farida Shaheed, carried out an official visit to the United States of America from 29 April to 10 May 2024, at the invitation of the Government. The Special Rapporteur visited Washington, D .C., and the States of

Colorado and Indiana.

2. In Washington, D.C., the Special Rapporteur engaged with a wide range of federal Government officials from : the United States Department of State ; the Department of Education and its Office for Civil Rights ; the Department of Justice and its Educational Opportunities Section; the White House Domestic Policy Council; and a staff member of the

2. In Washington, D.C., the Special Rapporteur engaged with a wide range of federal Government officials from : the United States Department of State ; the Department of Education and its Office for Civil Rights ; the Department of Justice and its Educational Opportunities Section; the White House Domestic Policy Council; and a staff member of the United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

3. In Indiana, the Special Rapporteur met the Indiana Secretary of Education, representatives of the Office of Education Innovation of the Office of the Mayor of Indianapolis and the Chair of Education Committee of the Indianapolis City-County Council.

It was unfortunate that the Special Rapporteur was expressly not allowed to visit any traditional public school s run by the Indianapolis Public Schools. This is contrary to the principle of freedom of inquiry of special rapporteurs during country visits and t he spirit of cooperation with human rights mechanisms that the officials of the United States otherwise extended.

4. In Colorado, the Special Rapporteur met the Governor, the Commissioner of Education and representatives of Colorado Department of Education, the Office of School Safety and the Colorado Association of School Boards.

5. In both States, she visited public schools, including public charter schools, providing education at the diverse levels, from kindergarten and elementary to middle and high school.

She spoke with students, parents, teachers and staff, school principals, school district superintendents and school board members.

6. The Special Rapporteur also had informative and fruitful discussions with academics, university students and faculty, representatives of youth associations, librarian and teachers unions and a host of other civil society actors. Th ose meetings, some held online, provided first-hand insights on the realization of the right to education in other States , including Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas and Washington.

7. The Special Rapporteur expresses her gratitude to the Government for its invitation and the full cooperation extended throughout the visit. She appreciates having received useful comments on her preliminary observations on the visit from the State Departme nt, the

Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas and Washington.

7. The Special Rapporteur expresses her gratitude to the Government for its invitation and the full cooperation extended throughout the visit. She appreciates having received useful comments on her preliminary observations on the visit from the State Departme nt, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice. She thanks all stakeholders for their insights, time and availability.

II. General context and legal framework

8. Education in the United States comprises a complex landscape of cascading authority, with decision-making powers exercised in a devolved, often hyper-local, manner. The federal Government has limited jurisdiction regarding education , with most functions concentrated at the level of the individual States, which allocate funding, set assessment and curriculum standards and oversee licensing for public (including charter) and private schools and for teachers. States establish compulsory attendance laws and control their curricula, regulating graduation requirements in key subjects.A/HRC/59/41/Add.1

4 GE.25-05621

9. Autonomy cascades further down to the nearly 14,000 school districts governed by school boards, most elected by their communities through direct voting. School boards develop their own annual budgets to run the school systems, set school policies and hire and evaluate superintendent s. School districts develop and implement curricula and select textbooks, with degrees of flexibility varying by State. School principals report to the superintendent but have a degree of decision -making autonomy in managing t he daily operations of individual schools.

10. Education is divided into three levels: elementary ( kindergarten through grades 5/6); secondary (middle and high school, grades 6/7 through grade 12); and post -secondary

(colleges and universities). The importance of quality pre -school education is recognized at the federal level, although access to such education is limited, especially for children from low-income backgrounds, English-language learners and children with disabilities.1

A. Federal competencies in education

11. Because t he federal Constitution does not specify a right to education or mention education as a federal responsibility, education is the remit of State and local governments

low-income backgrounds, English-language learners and children with disabilities.1

A. Federal competencies in education

11. Because t he federal Constitution does not specify a right to education or mention education as a federal responsibility, education is the remit of State and local governments under the tenth amendment.2 As noted in the landmark 1954 Supreme Court decision, Brown

1. Board of Education , education exists as a “function of state and local governments”, administered through the public school system. States are therefore primarily responsible for establishing and maintaining all aspects of public education. The federal Government influences education through national assessment, conditional funding, civil rights enforcement and programmes tied to federal laws, ensuring a level of consistency and equity across States.

12. A number of federal laws establish mandatory non -discrimination standards for all education programmes or activities that receive federal funding, including:

(a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, colour and national origin; (b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. Supreme Court caselaw has interpreted this to also safeguard against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, 3 although this interpretation may change in view of recent executive orders;4 (c) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability; (d) Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits age-based discrimination.

13. The Department of Education is the agency of the federal Government that establishes policy for, administers and coordinates most federal assistance to education. It assists the President in executing his education policies and in implementing laws enacted by Congress.5

14. The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education enforces federal laws by issuing regulations as well as guidelines and letters reminding local authorities of their legal obligations. It also considers and carries out investigations either proactively or in response to complaints received. The Office receives approximately 19,000 communications annually.

These may result in resolution agreements with school districts or universities. 6 In addition,

issuing regulations as well as guidelines and letters reminding local authorities of their legal obligations. It also considers and carries out investigations either proactively or in response to complaints received. The Office receives approximately 19,000 communications annually. These may result in resolution agreements with school districts or universities. 6 In addition,

1 See https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2024/02/24-0042-OESE-Early-School-Success-DCL-final2.26.2024.pdf. 2 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States, respectively, or to the people. 3 See Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). 4 Executive Order No 13988 of 20 January 2021, “Preventing and combating discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation”, was rescinded by President Trump on 20 January 2025. 5 See https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/an-overview-of-the-us-department-of-education--pg-1. 6 For a recent example, see https://palestinelegal.org/news/2025/1/23/success-department-of-educationoffice-for-civil-rights-states-george-washington-university-may-have-discriminated-based-on-A/HRC/59/41/Add.1 GE.25-05621 5 the Department of Justice can initiate lawsuits to hold entities violating federal nondiscrimination laws to account. This may result in a consent decree monitored by a judge.

15. The federal Government provides about 8 per cent to 9 per cent of funding for elementary and secondary education, including targeted support for low -income schools through Title I funding and the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015).

16. The federal Government also provides funding for specific needs, such as enabling children from low-income families below the age of compulsory school attendance to attain school readiness under the Head Start Act, 7 or provid ing school lunches for low -income

through Title I funding and the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015).

16. The federal Government also provides funding for specific needs, such as enabling children from low-income families below the age of compulsory school attendance to attain school readiness under the Head Start Act, 7 or provid ing school lunches for low -income individuals and families through the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program , administered by the Department of Agriculture , which annually serves over 40 million people.8 The federal Government pledged to fund 40 per cent of the excess cost of assistance for students with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act . In practice, however, only around 15 per cent of the excess cost is provided.9

17. Another targeted federal programme addresses homelessness by providing funding and support for housing, education and other essential services established under the 1987

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act , which targets homeless children and youth, including those in temporary housing, motels, trailer parks or campgrounds , due to housing loss or economic hardship. Federal law allows children to enrol in public schools without a permanent address10 and traditional public schools make a significant effort to include them. However, districts require extensive paperwork and may investigate residency through surveillance, landlord contacts or home visits, delaying enrolment and adding stigma for homeless children.

18. In addition, the American Rescue Plan (2021), passed by the United States Congress in the wake of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, supported equitable recovery and child poverty reduction, allocating $130 billion to schools for safe reopening, addressing the learning loss and social and emotional needs of students impacted by the pandemic , including students of colour, English -language learners and students with disabilities. It provided immediate relief and stabilized education, although its long-term impact depends on how States and districts sustain those investments.

19. In addition to funding, the federal Government also influences education through guidance and research. The Department of Education collects and disseminates educational data to inform policy and practice , issues policy recommendations and shares best practices for States and local districts, which, while not mandatory, are binding when tied to federal funding.

19. In addition to funding, the federal Government also influences education through guidance and research. The Department of Education collects and disseminates educational data to inform policy and practice , issues policy recommendations and shares best practices for States and local districts, which, while not mandatory, are binding when tied to federal funding.

20. The proposal of President Trump to eliminate the Department of Education, while requiring congressional approval beyond a simple majority, 11 risks cutting targeted funding for low -income students, weakening civil rights enforcement and disrupting higher education, leading to increased loan defaults and reduced college access. In addition, key functions could be dismantled through executive action. The loss of federal oversight could deepen inequities, harm marginalized students and undermine social mobility. 12

palestinian-national-origin. 7 Public Law 110-134, “Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007”, 12 December 2007. 8 See https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program. 9 See https://www.specialneedsalliance.org/blog/full-funding-of-the-idea-critical-for-our-children/. 10 The United States Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe (1982) guarantees equal education for undocumented children, a principle also relevant to homeless children facing access barriers. 11 Members of Congress have introduced related bills, including the “Returning Education to Our States Act” (S.5384) and “To terminate the Department of Education” (H.R.899). 12 See https://tcf.org/content/commentary/how-gutting-the-u-s-department-of-education-would-hurtstudents-and-their-families/ and https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/21/trump-educationdepartment.A/HRC/59/41/Add.1 6 GE.25-05621

B. State-level legal framework

21. The constitutions of all States in the United States mention education, albeit with wide variations.13 All 50 States have compulsory attendance laws requiring that children be

department.A/HRC/59/41/Add.1 6 GE.25-05621

B. State-level legal framework

21. The constitutions of all States in the United States mention education, albeit with wide variations.13 All 50 States have compulsory attendance laws requiring that children be educated.14 The right to education in State constitutions is often framed as an obligation of the State to provide a “free and adequate” education to all children within its borders. Some constitutions mandate a “thorough and efficient” education system or a “sound basic education.” Some States, like Florida and Illinois, explicitly recognize the right to a “high-quality” education. Other States have more general requirements, simply mandating the creation and maintenance of a public school system.

22. Courts have frequently interpreted these provisions, particularly in cases challenging school funding inequities. 15 Many State courts have ruled that the right to education necessitates equitable and sufficient resources for all students . However, the standards for what constitutes adequacy or quality can vary, leading to significant disparities between and within States.

23. While no State law can contravene federal non -discrimination provisions, the information received throughout the visit indicates that, in practice, an intricate web of interrelated discrimination continues to affect the most marginalized and vulnerable communities, perpetuating harmful cycles of inequality.

C. School choice

24. School choice, a term for education options that allow students and families to select alternatives to assigned public schools, is a defining feature of the education system in the United States, although it remains a subject of heated debate. Supporters of school choice value the flexibility to select schools that best fit children ’s learning styles, interests and needs and believe that it encourages competition that can improve school quality, in addition to offering low-income students access to better educational opportunities. Critics argue that, on the financial side, school cho ice programmes, such as vouchers, divert essential funding from public schools, potentially weakening the system. Concerns have been expressed about religious schools receiving public funds, the risk of increased educational inequality owing to selective admissions and the potential fragmentation of community traditionally fo stered

on the financial side, school cho ice programmes, such as vouchers, divert essential funding from public schools, potentially weakening the system. Concerns have been expressed about religious schools receiving public funds, the risk of increased educational inequality owing to selective admissions and the potential fragmentation of community traditionally fo stered by public education.16

25. The right of parents to direct the care and custody of their children is considered one of the oldest fundamental interests safeguarded by the Constitution. 17 In Washington v.

Glucksberg (1997), the federal Supreme Court declared that the Constitution, and specifically

13 See https://www.minneapolisfed.org/~/media/assets/articles/2020/education-clauses-in-stateconstitutions-across-the-united-states/education-clauses-in-state-constitutions-across-the-unitedstates.pdf. 14 National Center for Education Statistics, “State Education Practices” (2017), available at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab5_1.asp. 15 See, for example, Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York (State’s school-spending system denied New York City children their right to a “sound, basic education”, as guaranteed by the State constitution); Rose v. Council for Better Education (Kentucky Supreme Court declared the State’s entire education system unconstitutional because of the great disparity of local tax efforts, requiring funding reforms to ensure access to an adequate education for all students); Hoke County Board of Education v. North Carolina (North Carolina Supreme Court ordered to address funding differences between wealthy and poor districts and to reform the State education system to assure that all schoolchildren, no matter where they may live in the State, receive adequate educational opportunities). 16 See, for example, https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/the-ongoing-debate-over-school-choice. 17 In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the United States Supreme Court held that the “liberty” protected by the due process clause includes the right of parents to “establish a home and bring up children” and “to

17 In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the United States Supreme Court held that the “liberty” protected by the due process clause includes the right of parents to “establish a home and bring up children” and “to control the education of their own.” In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the Supreme Court held that the “liberty of parents and guardians” includes the right “to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.” In Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), the Supreme Court confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.A/HRC/59/41/Add.1 GE.25-05621 7 the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, protects the fundamental right of parents to direct the care, upbringing and education of their children. Many States have reconfirmed parental rights as a fundamental right in their laws.18

26. Nationwide, 90 per cent of students in elementary and secondary education attend public schools, of which 7 per cent attend public charter schools. 19 Parents can send their children to the public school designated for their home address (69 per cent of students are enrolled in assigned public schools) or, State laws permitting, may choose other options in the public school system, includ ing charter, innovation and magnet schools. In States with open enrolment, parents may apply to enrol their children in other public schools within or outside their designated school district. In total, 19 per cent of students are enrolled in public schools other than those in their designated school district.20

27. Moreover, parents can choose to send their children to private schools, which may be religious or non -sectarian, or elect to homeschool their children. The liberty of parents to choose private education has been safeguarded by the fourteenth amendment and recognized by United States courts since 1925.21 It should be noted that the Supreme Court upholds the right of parents to choose private education but not to control public school curricula or to demand exemptions.22 Lower courts consistently reject such claims on the grounds that these create an unworkable burden on public school systems.

by United States courts since 1925.21 It should be noted that the Supreme Court upholds the right of parents to choose private education but not to control public school curricula or to demand exemptions.22 Lower courts consistently reject such claims on the grounds that these create an unworkable burden on public school systems.

28. While all 50 States guarantee a parent ’s right to choose a private education, noting that compulsory school attendance can be realized in private schools,23 specific school choice

programmes are available in 33 States and in Washington, D.C. 24 There are 81 diverse educational choice program mes across the United States catering to approximately 1.2 million students. These program mes include education savings accounts, tax -credit education savings accounts, school vouchers, tax -credit scholarships, refundable tax credits and individual tax credits and deductions.25

29. All States regulate non-public education,26 while the Office of Non-Public Education provides non-regulatory guidance for State and local education authorities. 27 The challenge for State legislators in regulating private schools is to draft legislation that : (a) respects the fundamental right of parents to direct the education of their children ; (b) protects the State’s interest in having an informed citizenry but avoids interference with religious beliefs unless compelling interests are at issue, and then only in the least restrictive manner; and (c) avoids excessive regulation of private education that would essentially deprive parents of any choice in education and erase the distin ction between private and public schools. 28 Furthermore, since 80 per cent of private schools in the U nited States are religious institutions, any regulation of such schools must conform to the guarantee of the free exercise of religion under the first amendment.

18 See https://parentalrights.org/states/. 19 See https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/06/06/us-public-private-and-charter-schools-in-5charts/sr_24-05-07_schooltypes_2/. 20 See https://nces.ed.gov/programs/schoolchoice/ind_01.asp.

19 See https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/06/06/us-public-private-and-charter-schools-in-5charts/sr_24-05-07_schooltypes_2/. 20 See https://nces.ed.gov/programs/schoolchoice/ind_01.asp. 21 United States Supreme Court, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). 22 V.E. Hamilton, The conflict over parents’ rights (National Education Policy Center, 2024). 23 See https://www.ed.gov/birth-grade-12-education/school-choice/selected-us-supreme-court-rulingsrelated-private-and-home-schools. 24 See https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-ABCs-of-School-Choice.pdf. 25 Ibid. 26 See https://www.ed.gov/birth-grade-12-education/school-choice/state-regulation-of-private-andhome-schools and https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/EdChoice-School-StarterChecklist.pdf. 27 See https://www.ed.gov/birth-grade-12-education/school-choice/frequently-asked-questions-nonpublic-education. 28 See https://www.ed.gov/birth-grade-12-education/school-choice/selected-us-supreme-court-rulingsrelated-private-and-home-schools.A/HRC/59/41/Add.1 8 GE.25-05621

III. Specific achievements and challenges relating to the right to education in the United States

A. Systemic inequalities and their manifestations in education

30. Systemic inequalities in the education system remain a persistent challenge, deeply rooted in historical, social and economic factors. Disparities in access, resources and opportunities disproportionately affect students from marginalized communities, incl uding low-income families, racial and ethnic minorities, English -language learners, children with disabilities and children with special learning needs. These inequalities stem, first and foremost, from unequal school funding, often tied to urban plann ing and property taxes,

opportunities disproportionately affect students from marginalized communities, incl uding low-income families, racial and ethnic minorities, English -language learners, children with disabilities and children with special learning needs. These inequalities stem, first and foremost, from unequal school funding, often tied to urban plann ing and property taxes, resulting in stark contrasts between well -resourced schools in affluent neighbourhoods and underfunded schools in economically disadvantaged areas. In many underfunded schools, teachers are overworked, often managing larger class si zes with limited resources and increased responsibilities without adequate support or compensation. This leaves underperforming students without the extra support they need.

31. Test-based accountability strategies also negatively affec