ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO EDUCATION

One of the petitioners asked us whether a child, who has reached the level of development required for schooling and will reach the age of six by the 31 st of May, is required to attend school or can he spend another year in kindergarten at the request of the parents. We informed him that in accordance with Paragraph (2) of Article 6 of the Public Education Act a child who reaches the level of development required for schooling becomes liable for compulsory school attendance when he or she reaches the age of six by the 31 st day of May in the given calendar year. Even though it is the principal of the school who makes the decision regarding the beginning of compulsory school attendance, his right of deliberation-in accordance with the specific relevant provision of the Public Education Act-does not extend to this specific case. Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of Article 16 of Decree No. 11/1994 (VI. 8.) of the Ministry of Culture and Public Education, parents, between the 1 st of March and the 30 th of April-at the time announced by settlement, city, Budapest district municipalities or city municipalities with county rights-are required to enrol their children obligated to attend school, in the first grade of a school of their choosing or the territorially competent school. In accordance with Point b) of Paragraph (2) of Article 14 of the Public Education Act it is the special responsibility of the parent to ensure that the child meets the requirements of compulsory school attendance. Pursuant to Point b) of Paragraph (7) of Article 91 of the Act, the notary competent according to the child's residence shall officially or on the basis of notification order the meeting of the requirements of compulsory school attendance, if the parent fails to do so. Therefore if the parent fails to enrol the child into primary school, then the matter is passed to the jurisdiction of the territorially competent notary. (K-OJOG-343/2004.)

A complainant came to us with a secondary school admission problem. As admission requirement, the secondary school determined a successful entry examination, as well as an end of year average grade of around 4.5 without any 3 grades. The parent's question was regarding the consequences if one of the above two requirements was not met for some reason. We informed him that Annex 3 of Decree No. 12/2003 (V. 23) of the Ministry of Education on the 2003/2004 Academic Year contains the deadlines of secondary school admission proceedings. The table in the Decree clearly shows that results (following the end of legal remedy proceedings) of admission proceedings are finalised by 2 June 2004 . At this point the finalised order can no longer be changed. The academic year however ends at a later date, and as a consequence the complainant's child will receive his primary school report card later as well. This means that the secondary school has no right to determine requirements, the meeting of which is still uncertain at the time the admission proceedings end. (K-OJOG-371/2004.)

In his petition a complainant protested that his child cannot learn English in his vocational secondary school. We informed him that in accordance with Point k) of Paragraph (1) of Article 11 of the Public Education Act, it is students' special right to-within the framework established by the framework curriculum, the educational programme and the regulation of school-leaving examination- to choose subjects they wish to study, as well as to choose the teachers they would like to have teach these subjects. This right, however, can be exercised only proportionate to the school's possibilities. At the same time, Paragraph (5) of Article 66 of the Public Education Act states that it is the professional panel or-in its absence taking the opinion of the teaching staff into account-the principal who makes a decision about dividing students into classes and groups. Therefore, according to the statute, the principal is not obliged to ask for the opinion of neither students, nor parents prior to making decisions. We have informed the complainant that in this case we are talking about a breach of interest and not a violation of rights. Pursuant to the decree that governs the operation of our office, we have no jurisdiction in matters regarding the breach of interest. (K-OJOG-714/2004.)

The parents came to our office to protest that the school's principal has expelled their child from school and informed them of this decision through a letter. In his statement, the principal stated that he had numerous conflicts with both the student and his parents. These included several instances where the student violated house rules. According to the principal one of the parents also talked to a teacher in an inexcusable tone of voice. In light of all this, the end-of-year teacher conference decided to grade the student's behaviour as good instead of excellent, and instructed the principal to "inform the parents in a letter, that if they have no desire or are unable to adhere to house rules , and further conflicts occur, then in accordance with Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 13 of Act LXXIX of 1993, they are entitled to choose a school better suited for them."

Article 75 of the Public Education Act sets out an itemised list of cases where student statuses cease to exist with respect to schools maintained by local municipalities. This list does not mention cases where the school recommends the termination of such a relationship. This list is exhaustive in nature, therefore cases not mentioned here shall all be considered unlawful regardless of the things the student or the parents have committed previously, if they have indeed committed anything at all. The Public Education Act and its implementing regulations (in this respect Decree No. 11/1994 (VI. 8.) of the Ministry of Public Education and Culture shall primarily prevail) regulate the tools available to schools in order to sanction inappropriate student behaviour. Public education institutions are allowed to apply so-called disciplinary measures (warning, cautioning, reprimand, etc.), as well as launching disciplinary proceedings. There is a difference between the two routes. The legislator does not regulate disciplinary measures in detail in statutes, and allows the internal regulations of the given institution to determine its specific forms and circumstances of application. In contrast, every last detail of disciplinary proceedings is regulated by statutes. One of the reasons for this differentiation is the fact that disciplinary proceedings can have grave legal repercussions, and might possibly even end in the termination of student legal status. If the public education institution feels that the student has violated his or her obligations, then they have the option to take one of the routes listed. However, they are not allowed to recommend that the student leave the school, as this would be bypassing the disciplinary proceedings, the significance of which is precisely the fact that it serves as a guarantee for both the institution and the student, since during the proceeding demonstration is conducted, decisions supported by evidence are adopted, these can be appealed, etc. No form of behaviour on parents' part can justify the above. The statutes do not extend to the educational sanctioning of parental activity. If the teacher, the principal or the school teaching staff object to action of parents they can then seek legal remedy through the civil or criminal courts. Holding the student responsible for parental behaviour and sanctioning him/her as a result is strictly prohibited in all cases. The solution chosen by the institution is not only dangerous because it does not correspond to the wording of the statutes. The fact that such request or recommendations have no legal binding are no grounds for exemption, since even so the institution is exerting significant influence on the parents. The situations of the parent and the principal representing the school are very different. In such cases the parent is in no position to negotiate. Naturally he wants the best for his child, and wants to avoid his child having to continue studies in a possibly hostile environment. Parents seemingly exercise the right of free choice of school as a result of such notices from the school when they take their child to another institution, whereas in reality, they are under pressure because they feel that there is no other option. Through this solution, the school takes the case out of legally regulated proceedings, preventing the case to proceed in a legally strictly bound order.

Based on the above we have determined that the school has violated rights. As the complainant's student status with the school has been terminated in the meantime-for other reasons-we have not initiated proceedings to cease this specific violation of rights, however, we have put forth an initiative to prevent this in the future. We have also initiated that in the future the principal recommend the termination of student status strictly within the framework of the procedural order in accordance with statutes. The principal accepted this initiative. (K-OJOG-588/2004.)

A complainant came to our office and told us that his child's school is requiring that parents make various payments (photocopying, paying for tennis classes featured in the curriculum, computer equipment, purchase of sanitary pack through school procurement). We informed the complainant that parents can make joint decisions as to what amounts they pay for various purposes. They can appoint the head teacher to manage the amounts paid. In this case the amounts paid will be jointly owned by the parents. As far as situations are concerned, where parents do not pay these amounts based on a joint decision, with respect to the case's legal consideration we gave the following information Pursuant to Point b), Paragraph (1), Article 114 of the Public Education Act services and classes provided free of charge by institutions of education operated by municipalities and state bodies, including free services provided by the municipality are the classes and, inter alia , the use of the tools/equipment provided by school facilities (library, laboratory, computer room, sports and recreational facilities). Paragraph (2), Article 19 of the Public Education Act states that the teacher-without specifying quality or price-may require that students purchase such items of clothing, or other equipment that are necessary for students to be able to participate in the given class, or to be able to acquire the material taught, and which is to be used by every student in class on a regular basis. Based on the above, the school is not entitled to require payment from the parents in connection with tennis training and the use of computer equipment. If there is equipment or tools that are indispensable for participation in computer class or there is a need to use photocopies, then the teacher may request that these items be acquired by the student, but the school board has the right to set out restrictions on the expenses related thereto. It is a basic hygienic requirement of school operation that sanitary and hygienic equipment be provided without the need to procure sanitary-hygienic packs. Naturally, parents may decide to buy this, however, the school-through its own procurement-may not demand it on a compulsory basis. (K-OJOG-754/2004.)

A school principal came to us with a problem regarding the assessment of a situation where a teacher is tutoring a student who goes to the school where this particular teacher works.

We have informed the petitioner that our office launches proceedings only if specific violations of rights have occurred or if there is a direct danger of this occurring. The system-where teachers of the school tutor their own students for money under organised circumstances- that the petitioner protested against, even though is ethically objectionable, it does not violate any rights. Furthermore, we also informed the petitioner that the many-layered teaching activity is quite difficult to precisely define from a legal point of view. There are a number of situations where the law in itself is unable to provide good solutions. Among the recommendations of the literature available to teachers is one that states that teachers should not tutor their own students or any other students of the school in exchange for money. The principal can initiate the establishment of an ethics committee in school, which would make decisions in such debatable cases. (K-OJOG-770/2004.)