A/HRC/29/30 principal responsibility for the direct provision of education in most circumstances; States parties to the Covenant recommend, for example, that the “development of a system of schools at all levels shall be actively pursued”.19 States have an “unequivocal obligation” to provide primary education free of charge to all, with a detailed plan of action to progressively improve provision, under article 14 of the Covenant.20 The Committee has stressed that, under article 13, States are regarded as having principal responsibility for the direct provision of education in most circumstances.21 52. According to a report by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), “only the State … can pull together all the components into a coherent but flexible education system”.22 Any State in which a significant number of individuals are deprived of the most basic form of education is, prima facie, failing to discharge its obligations under the Covenant. If the Covenant were to be read in such a way as not to establish such a minimum core obligation, it would be largely deprived of its raison d’être.23 53. It is an established principle of human rights law that the State remains responsible for its obligations, even when they are privatized. The European Court of Human Rights has held that, under the European Convention on Human Rights, a State cannot absolve itself from responsibility by delegating its obligations to private school bodies. 24 This position is reinforced by the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which emphasize that when States delegate their responsibilities to businesses, they remain responsible for ensuring that their human rights obligations are being met by those companies. 54. The State remains primarily responsible for education on account of international legal obligations and cannot divest itself of its core public service functions. As the Supreme Court of the United States of America stated in the historic judgement in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), “providing public schools ranks at the very apex of the function of a State” and “education is perhaps the most important function of State and local governments”. 25 55. Yet, instead of controlling the growth of privatized, for-profit education, Governments often support private providers through subsidies and tax incentives, thus divesting themselves of their primary public function. As a result, rather than supplementing government efforts, private providers are supplanting public education and commercializing education in the process. VI. Negative impacts of privatization on fundamental principles and norms underpinning the right to education 56. Privatization of education, where it has a negative impact, violates many of the legal and moral norms upon which the right to education is established. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ibid., para. 48 citing art. 13 (2) (e). Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 13, para. 9. Ibid., para. 48. UNICEF, The State of the World’s Children ��� Education (New York, 1999), p. 63. See Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 3 (1990) on the nature of State parties’ obligations, para. 10. Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, judgement of 25 March 1993, paras. 27 and 28. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S.205, 92 S. Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972), as cited “Students Rights”, in Education Law, Charles J. Russo and Ralph D. Mawdsley, eds., Education Series (New York, Law Journal Press, 2002). 9