Abstract
The relevance of the issue under study is stipulated by the importance of compliance of the education public administration with the right to education in modern conditions. purpose of the article is to elucidate the right to education as a phenomenon that determines the direction and limits of public administration in the educational sphere. A leading research approach is the systematic analysis of the right to education as a factor in the content and nature of public administration in the educational field. The empirical basis of the study is the European Court of Human Rights practice in the field of the right to education. The article identifies and describes six provisions that characterize the right to education and determine the direction and limits of public administration of education: the obligation of the state to guarantee access to education institutions for persons under the jurisdiction of the state; the state has the discretion to determine the content of education and spread certain philosophical and world outlook ideas through the education. the state is obliged to provide free of charge elementary and general education; the obligation of the state is to ensure equal access of persons to education; the obligation of the state is to develop the school system; to establish the optimal system of scholarships; recognition of a certain degree of autonomy to educational institutions. The material in this article may be useful for scholars exploring the right to education and public administration of education. The main provisions of the study can be used to improve public administration of education, monitor the quality of education, and improve educational legislation.
References
Bidjiev D, Borlakova S, Klushinа N, Petrova N, Pivnenko P, Uzdenova A, Kharchenko L. (2017). Students’ worldview attitude and education content orientation. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 6(5), 277-284. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v6i5.1269.
Claude RP. (2005). The right to education and human rights education. Sur. Revista Internacional de Direitos Humanos, 2(2). http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1806-64452005000100003&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. (1950). https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf.
Education in Ukraine: Basic indicators. (2018). Information Bulletin. https://mon.gov.ua/storage/app/media/nova-ukrainska-shkola/1serpkonf-informatsiyniy-byuleten.pdf.
Education Minnesota. (2019). www.educationminnesota.org.
Erçetin ŞŞ, Fındık LY. (2016). Chaos, complexity and leadership. In: Springer Proceedings in Complexity, pp. 463-475. Luxembourg: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-64554-4_32.
European Court of Human Rights “Case of Altinay v. Turkey”, Application No 37222/04. (2013). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-122497.
European Court of Human Rights “Case of Appel-Irrgang v. Germany”, Application No 45216/07. (2009). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-112539.
European Court of Human Rights “Case of Çam v. Turkey”, Application No 51500/08. (2016).
European Court of Human Rights “Case of Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom”, Applications No 7511/76, 7743/76. (1982). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57455.
European Court of Human Rights “Case of Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom”, Application No 13134/87. (1993). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57804.
European Court of Human Rights “Case of Folgerø and Others v. Norway”, Application No 15472/02. (2007). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-81356.
European Court of Human Rights “Case of Fredin v. Sweden (No 1)”, Application No 12033/86. (1991). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57651.
European Court of Human Rights “Case of Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark”, Applications No 5095/71; 5920/72; 5926/72. (1976). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57509.
European Court of Human Rights “Case of Konrad and Others v. Germany”, Application No 35504/03. (2006a). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-76925.
European Court of Human Rights “Case of Mürsel Eren v. Turkey”, Application No 60856/00. (2006b). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-72293.
European Court of Human Rights “Case of Lautsi and others v. Italy”, Application No 30814/06. (2011). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-104040.
European Court of Human Rights “Case of Leyla Şahin v. Turkey”, Application No 44774/98. (2005). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-70956.
European Court of Human Rights “Case of Marios Georgiou v. Greece”, Application No 45138/98. (2000). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-5006.
European Court of Human Rights “Case of Sulak v. Turkey”, Application No 24515/94. (1996). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-2669.
European Court of Human Rights “Case of Verein Gemeinsam Lernen”, Application No 23419/94. (1995). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-2278.
European Court of Human Rights “Case Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium v. Belgium (Merits)”, Applications No 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64. (1968). http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57525.
Hou Y, Ni A, Poocharoen O, Yang K, Zhao ZJ. (2010). The case for public administration with a global perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(1), i45-i51. DOI: 10.2307/40961917.
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-161149
Iftene C. (2014). Educational systems’ autonomy. Facts and analysis. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 142, 47-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.586.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (1966). https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx.
Karahioz RS, Lehka OV, Minchenko SI. (2019). Public administration of legal education in the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights. The Asian International Journal of Life Sciences, 21(2), 493-504.
Kuchuk AM, Serdiuk LM, Zavhorodnia YS. (2019). Modern law education in the context of natural understanding of law. The Asian International Journal of Life Sciences, 21(2), 359-370.
Manan M. (2015). The implementation of the right to education in Indonesia. Indonesia Law Review, 1, 51-68. DOI: 10.15742/ilrev.v5n1.137.
Markina IA, Chykurkova AD, Dudziak OA, Opaliuk TL, Dobrenko IA. (2019). Globalization-induced changes in higher education management in Ukraine. International Journal of Educational Management, 33(6), 1291-1302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2019-0037.
Mbajiorgu G, Mafumo T. (2014). Striving for quality education: The right to education as a socio-economic right. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(8), 302-311. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n8p302.
Moyaert M. (2018). Inter-worldview education and the re-production of good religion. Education Sciences, 8, 156. DOI: 10.3390/educsci8040156.
Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. (1952). https://rm.coe.int/168006377c.
Pysmennyi IV, Lypovska NA. (2015). Ethos of public service in Ukraine: Theoretical and empiric aspects. Public Administration Aspects, 10(24), 5-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15421/151577.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/