INTRODUCTION
In the last five years, there has been significantly more talk about educational rights and the manifestation of the basic values of democracy at schools and universities. In this past year, many people came to us requesting information regarding their rights and possibilities, and this is a good indicator of the level of interest among the participants in education. They do not know as yet whether their rights have been impaired, and are not requesting proceedings; however, they wish to be aware of the provisions of the law before a responsible decision is made regarding their case. Providing information and passing on regulations is of the utmost importance in the world of education. The right to information forms the basis of educational rights. In public education, parents-as soon as children reach the age of compulsory school attendance-do not have the option to freely decide whether to enrol their children to school or not. As a result of the compulsory school attendance as set out in the Constitution-as long as it is in force-children are obligated to attend school. The constitutional right to culture is therefore accompanied by a constitutional obligation, namely compulsory school attendance. This is the reason why the provision of information has such particular significance, not only when choosing the schools, but up until student status is discontinued. Parents-along with their children-are users of the second largest public service of the country. As such, they are entitled to have rights. The public service is provided by the teachers, therefore they are the obligors in this relationship. The public service is organised based on statutes and local standards; teachers make their decisions based on these, quite possibly several times a day. This presupposes that teachers are aware of and familiar with relevant regulations. In our opinion, if the participants of education are unfamiliar with these regulations, then they are unable to make responsible decisions.
It is also our opinion that a large number of debates and arguments can be pre-empted through the regular provision of information on the main regulations concerning schools. This provision of information protects more than just the parents and the students. If parents make decisions while disregarding the aforementioned comprehensive information provision, then they have no legal basis to shift responsibility to the teachers. The statutes clearly mark the line that distinguishes between the responsibilities of the parents and the schools. The only way for the participants of education to learn this is from the statutes and from the local standards based on said statutes. The law serves as a standard for the settling of disputes. If concerned parties are familiar with these rules, then they are able to resolve their differences in a democratic way. In the absence of familiarity with and application of the law, disputes will be settled based on power, position, emotion, morality and taste. Private differences might be settled relying on the above values, but they do not apply to public service. One of the cornerstones of democracy is the rule of law. School and university are part of this democracy. The principles and values we have held true for the past fifteen years and which we apply in many areas of our lives must also be enforced here. Public and higher education are matters of public interest and as such must form part of the debate on democratic public law. If this debate occurs exclusively between educational politicians and teachers, then even though it might become interesting or even productive, the fact remains that those most affected by it are effectively left out: children, parents and future parents. Also left out are the voters who could have a say in how Members of Parliament (MP's) use local, national or EU funds that are available to finance the organisation and operation of various public services and the performance of tasks.
The accession to the European Union has a particular effect on education. Namely, the field of education remains within the national sphere of competence. We, Hungarians must make an effort to consider and review the type of education we desire and we have to make the decisions ourselves. We are not bound by EU standards, regulations or guidelines and we are not obligated to receive and apply community norms. This unlimited freedom, however, cannot make us forget the fact that the young people and fresh graduates emerging from the education system will have to work, create, compete and live in European Union trade, services, industries, agriculture and public administration. This is the reason why education is a matter of public interest. When a student protests against physical abuse; when a parent complains that the promised English course has been cancelled; when he refuses to acknowledge expulsion; when a teacher takes offence that a third expert has been appointed (who could in theory discover something that could result in his discharge); when a university student on child care allowance (GYES) speaks out against having to pay tuition fees: these people, beyond trying to improve public service, are trying to at least make it legal. Lawful education is the minimum requirement. This in itself though does not ensure that the institution of education or the educational system is indeed good. It is, however, impossible to organise a public service within the framework of the constitutional state which may be good, but is at the same time unlawful. Many people will enter and frequently review this debate on education. The more this debate is reopened and the more participants there are to the discussion; the closer we can get to good solutions. Still the emphasis is on the debate itself. What makes us democrats is not constantly finding solutions, but rather constantly searching for them. Experience shows that in many cases there is no room for arguments in the institutions at all, because the participants of education do not trust each other. For this reason cooperation between them is non-existent. In such cases, they tend to suppress their grievances, which surface later on drenched in passion and emotion, with practically no hope for a solution. Yet, wherever there is occasionally a chance for debate, the chance of irreparable damages and grievances occurring are smaller. Naturally, interests and solutions may vary, just like the roads leading to them. A debate only makes sense if we possess information and it is our mutual goal to continuously search for good solutions, to correct bad decisions within the framework of the law, all the while adhering to the provisions of the law. These debates do have one very important condition though: we need to have faith that the goals of the other party are the same as ours. This does not work without trust.
Institutions regularly find themselves in situations where they are left on their own to deal with certain important problems. Incidents concerning aggression among young people, drug and alcohol abuse, the spreading of HIV/AIDS, the lack of sexual education and poverty are all cases where asking for help is necessary. The authorities, the protectors of rights, the researchers, the police, doctors and last, but not least non-governmental organisations have significant experience in these fields. If they manage to find the forms of cooperation, then schools and families will not be abandoned. Neither the local, nor the national budget will be able to set aside more funds to handle and deal with important social problems affecting the youth. The European structural funds on the other hand are able to provide this money. Only partners working in extensive cooperation can successfully apply for these funds. Within the European Union cooperation has no alternative.
Ever since our establishment five years ago, we have considered it our mission-alongside parents, pupils, teachers, college/university students, trainers and researchers-to make the operation of educational institutions lawful. With our procedures we are looking to aid cooperation, while helping school, college and university citizens accept fact that they can put their faith into the rule of law and they can trust the institutions, since it is the institutions which serve the citizens and not the other way around. If as a result of our initiatives and recommendations, institutions begin to remedy the infringements, then they will be able to regain the trust of many. If these institutions cooperate with each other on more frequent basis acting in citizens' interests, then the trust placed in them will increase manifold. Debating and contrasting views with and within such institutions makes sense. In these institutions democratic values and principles become the norm and the participants of education feel less and less vulnerable. As a result the law will cease to be their enemy and will become a valuable ally.
Budapest , March 31, 2005
Lajos Aáry-Tamás
Content
|
