Right to Education in Malaysia and the United States - Thesis Proposal Example

Right to Education: Comparison between Malaysia and the United s Background The right to education is one of the basic human right afforded to all citizens of the world. According to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (hereinafter known as The Covenant) the right to education is a universal right which covers the right to free and compulsory primary education for all. It also covers the obligation to develop accessible secondary education to all, alongside equitable access to higher education. The Covenant also indicates the importance of non-discriminatory practices for all learners, indicating no prohibitions on primary education to any child on the basis of minority, religion, ethnicity, or gender. In Malaysia, Article 12 of their Federal Constitution also recognizes the rights of all their citizens in respect to education, with its availability indicated regardless of religion, race, descent or place of birth. The Education Act of 1996 also indicates specific provisions on the implementation of the educational system for Malaysia, from pre-school to Post-Graduate education. In the United States, the right to education is also recognized, but its laws are less explicit in the recognition of such rights. The US Constitution does not specifically provide and indicate the right of all people to education. Only through their Federal Court decisions has the right to education been given significant recognition. Through the decisions of Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and Brown v. Board of Education, the right to education has been addressed and given guidance for implementation. The No Child Left Behind law was also passed in order to give a more explicit provision for primary education in the US. Regardless of some basic similarities between these two countries in relation to the right to education, some differences are also noted. This study shall compare the legal provisions on the right to education between these two countries, considering similarities and differences, as well as differences in implementation of the right. Objectives This study seeks to compare the legal provisions on the right to education between the United States and Malaysia. Specifically, it has the following objectives: 1. To establish the similarities and differences between the US and Malaysia on legal provisions for the right to education. 2. To establish the legal gaps between international legal provisions on the right to education and the provisions set in the US and Malaysia 3. To establish whether these gaps have affected the implementation of current education programs in both countries. Literature Review Various studies have been carried out on the right to education. Some of these will be discussed and presented below. In the study by Kamarrudin, Ahman, and Sulaiman (2005), the authors set out to discuss the right to education in Malaysia in relation to the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It mostly considered the rights to education in Islam in Malaysia where majority of their population belong to the Islamic faith. The study established that the right to education is recognized in both the international and in Malaysia policies and the latter has done its utmost to secure compulsory primary education for its citizens regardless of their religious affiliation. It is recommended however that Malaysia take more strides towards securing compulsory education for the children until they reach the age of 17. The country also recognizes the fact that through education, the moral, economic, and social development of the children can be secured. In the end, these are values which are also supported by Islam. In the United States, the right to education is less legally clear-cut. Their constitution does not specifically mandate the right to education for its people and the country is not a signatory to some of the international conventions which specify the allocation of the right to education. In the study by Urchick (2007), she discusses the fact that the right to education in the US is based on state and local practices and laws, especially as the federal system does not formally recognize the positive right to education. Urchick (2007) takes issue with such gap in US policy especially as the country is considered a democratic leader, but is very much reluctant to commit to international conventions on the protection of basic human rights, including the right to children to education. While the US is certainly considered one of the leaders in education, a federal commitment to the right to education is still needed in ensure federal economic support and to ensure federal authority on actions and difficulties, including discriminatory practices against the right to education. The implementation of the right to education in Malaysia has also been wrought with various issues. While their federal government and other laws are specific on their protection of such rights, there have also been barriers and gaps in its implementation. In the study by Letchamanan (2013), the minority Rohingyas were the subject of study. The Rohingya group has long been persecuted by Myanmar and in the years which followed persistent oppression, some of them sought refuge from Bangladesh, Thailand, and Malaysia. This group however are considered refugees and legally cannot find work or cannot access free healthcare and education from the Malaysian government. Most of the children receive instruction from UN aid organizations as well as NGOs, however, the gap in their education is still very much significant despite efforts to educate them. The author recommends more specific efforts on the part of the Malay government towards the extension of the right to education towards these refugees, still within the spirit of free compulsory education for all, regardless of race, ethnic origin, or place of birth. In a report by The Leadership Conference Education Fund’s Human Rights Policy and Education Project (2013) on the US and its compliance with the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), it was revealed that despite efforts by the US to protect their citizens’ right to education, the public education system in the country is still very much segregated. The schools which are also serving low income and largely minority ethnic families are insufficiently funded. They do not have the sufficient resources to secure quality education for their students. As a result, millions of Americans are still being deprived of the adequate academic tools and competency to secure college education or global competitiveness. These conditions are very much contrary to the obligations indicated by the ICCPR for the US which calls for equal treatment in relation to race or other status. The report also indicates that such inadequacies are mostly attributed to the gap between state and local support and funding for education. While the federal government has provided options to manage issues in education, the failure of the country to explicitly include the right to education in its federal system is a major drawback in its efforts to ensure such right. These studies present the current status of the right to education for both Malaysia and the US. There are however gaps in research on the actual similarities and differences in the right to education for both countries. Hence, the focus of this study would be on comparing such similarities and differences in implementation. Methodologies This study shall primarily be a quantitative survey of the application of the right to education in Malaysia and the US. The primary respondents would be legislators and school administrators who are implementing the right to education. A questionnaire shall be developed in order to study or compare the differences and similarities in the implementation of the right to education in both countries. The points of difference and similarity would be focused on the compliance with UN or international mandates on education and compliance with the state or local mandates on the right to education. Working Scheme First month Second month Third Month Fourth Month Fifth month Initial research Approval received Distribution of questionnaires Write-up of results Defense and possible revisions Formulation of objectives Formulation of questionnaires Retrieval of questionnaires Analysis write-up Submission of proposal Pre-test of research tool Tabulation of answers Write-up of discussion Ethical approval Contacting possible respondents Application of statistical measures References Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art. 13. (1966) Kamarudin, Z., Sheikh Ahmad, I., & Sulaiman, S. (2007). Education for all and childrens right to education in Malaysia. Educational Awakening: Journal of the Educational Sciences, 2(2), 169-190. Letchamanana, H. (2013). Myanmar’s Rohingya refugees in Malaysia: education and the way forward. Journal of International and Comparative Education, 2(2), 86. Malaysia Federal Constitution (2010). Art. 12. The rights in respect to education. Meyer v. Nebraska 262 U.S. 390 (1923) No Child Left Behind Act (2001). Elementary and Secondary Education Act Pierce v. Society of Sisters 268 U.S. 510 (1925) The Leadership Conference Education Fund’s Human Rights Policy and Education Project (2013). Still segregated: how race and poverty stymie the right to education. Retrieved from http://civilrightsdocs.info/pdf/reports/Still_Segregated-Shadow_Report.pdf United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 26. (1948). Urchick, K. (2007). U.S. Education Law: Is the Right to Education in the U.S. in compliance with International Human Rights Standards?. Michigan State University College of Law, pp. 1-39. Read More