A/HRC/14/25 Milestones in this process have been the Convention against Discrimination in Education and the declarations mentioned above. This progressive reduction in scope of the right to education in the South has been criticized for serving as a largely functional, basic-skill acquisition for low value-added routine work within the global division of labour.19 25. The Special Rapporteur also observes with concern that increasingly, especially since the adoption of the World Declaration on Education for All, goodwill has become a substitute for entitlement. Frequently, the right to education has been replaced by legally non-binding terms such as “access to education”.20 This coincides with a general shift from a teacher-centred to a learner-centred approach, on one hand, and the redefinition of education, on the other. Here, education, for whose provision the State is primarily responsible, is being redefined as a commodity rather than a societal good, with the learner made responsible for this – portrayed as a consumer with choices. For the Special Rapporteur, this approach to education, particularly in the face of wider global challenges (sustainability, security and equality) is problematic. 26. The Special Rapporteur also notes that the international norms and instruments listed earlier pay little attention to the particular situation of the educational rights of migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers. The same is the case with many other instruments, such as the Convention concerning Migration for Employment (Revised 1949), the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities (1992), and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1992). 27. However, the Special Rapporteur observes that the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (arts. 4 and 22) and the Migrant Workers Convention reiterate the right to educational choice and the obligation of the contracting States to accord to refugees the same treatment as is accorded to nationals with respect to “elementary education”21 and to ensure “equal opportunities” with respect to nonelementary education. This includes access, the recognition of certificates and diplomas, the remission of fees and charges and the award of scholarships. Moreover, in accordance with article 28.1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child “equal opportunity” in terms of the “best interest” principle may justify differential treatment of migrant, refugee and asylumseekers’ children, such as mother-tongue teaching, provided that non-discrimination measures are in place,22 although in article 45.4 of the Migrant Workers Convention, there is no obligation for receiving States to provide special mother-tongue instruction schemes. 28. Furthermore, according to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its general comment No. 6 (2005), equality of treatment irrespective of nationality, immigration status or statelessness should also be guaranteed to unaccompanied and separated children. The Special Rapporteur notes, however, that, for some authors writing on education, the international legislation applicable to the situation of independent child migrants remains 19 20 21 22 8 See Colin Lankshear, “Language and the new capitalism”, International Journal of Inclusive Education, vol. 1, No. 4 (October 1998), pp. 309–321; Rosa María Torres, “One decade of education for all: the challenge ahead”, (Buenos Aires, IIEP-UNESCO, 1999). See Human rights obligations in education: the 4-A scheme, pp. 28, 49 and 64. Elementary education has been variously interpreted: see, further, World Education Report 2000: The right to education – towards education for all throughout life. “Children, migration and international norms”, p. 210. GE.10-12879