Final Evaluation of the Implementation of the First Phase of the World
Programme for Human Rights Education

I. Introduction
A. Background information
1. The General Assembly, in resolution 59/113 A of 10 December 2004,
proclaimed the World Programme for Human Rights Education as a global
initiative structured in consecutive phases, intended to advance the implementation of human rights education programmes in all sectors. The firstphase of the World Programme covered the period 2005-20091 and focusedon integrating human rights education in the primary and secondary school
systems.
2. In resolution 59/113 B of 14 July 2005, the Assembly adopted theplan of action for the first phase of the World Programme (A/59/525/Rev.1),
which proposes a concrete strategy and practical guidance for implementing human rights education nationally.2 The Assembly, inter alia, encouraged all States to develop initiatives within the World Programme and, inparticular, to implement, within their capabilities, the plan of action; and appealed to relevant organs, bodies or agencies of the United Nations system,
as well as all other international and regional intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, within their respective mandates, to promote
271

272

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

and technically assist, when requested, the national implementation of theplan of action.
3. The plan of action was developed by a broad group of education andhuman rights practitioners from all continents. It seeks to promote a holistic, rights-based approach to the education system that includes both“human rights through education”, ensuring that all the components andprocesses of education — including curricula, materials, methods and training — are conducive to the learning of human rights, and “human rights
in education”, ensuring that the human rights of all members of the schoolcommunity are respected. Human rights education activities should convey
fundamental human rights values, such as equality and non-discrimination,
while affirming the interdependence, indivisibility and universality of theseprinciples. At the same time, activities should be practical, relating humanrights to learners’ real-life experience and enabling them to build on humanrights principles found in their own cultural context.
4. The plan of action recognizes the diversity of country contexts andthe varying possibilities for integrating human rights education into school
systems. It highlights the following five components which support the implementation of human rights education at the national level: policies; policy implementation; the learning environment; teaching and learning processes and tools; and education and professional development of teachersand other education personnel. The plan of action includes an appendix entitled “Components of human rights education in the primary and secondary school systems”, which provides further guidance on how each of thesecomponents can be implemented and proposes good practice based on successful experiences from around the world as well as studies and research.
Relevant actors are urged to strive towards gradual and progressive
implementation. The components are addressed in greater detail in subsequent sections of the present report.
5. In paragraph 26 of the plan of action, it is suggested that national
implementation of the plan of action take place in four stages: analysis of
the current situation of human rights education in the school system; setting priorities and developing a national implementation strategy; implementing and monitoring; and evaluating. In paragraph 27, Member States
are encouraged to undertake at least the first two stages during the firstphase of the World Programme, as well as initial implementation of planned
activities.

World Programme for Human Rights Education

273

6. The United Nations Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee on
Human Rights Education in the School System was established in September
2006, in accordance with the plan of action, to facilitate coordinated United
Nations support for the national implementation of the plan of action during the first phase. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights(OHCHR) has provided the secretariat for the Coordinating Committee.3
B. Mandate for the evaluation
7. The plan of action calls for an evaluation of action undertaken during
the first phase of the World Programme (2005-2009). Paragraph 49 statesthat each country will undertake an evaluation of actions implemented
under the plan of action, taking into consideration progress made in legal
frameworks and policies, curricula, teaching and learning processes andtools, revision of textbooks, teacher training, improvement of the school
environment and other areas. The Member States will be called upon to provide their final national evaluation report to the Coordinating Committee.
Paragraph 51 provides that the Coordinating Committee will prepare a final
evaluation report based on national evaluation reports, in cooperation with
relevant international, regional and non-governmental organizations. The
report will be submitted to the General Assembly.
8. The Human Rights Council, in its resolution 12/4 of 1 October 2009,
reminded Member States to submit their national evaluation reports to the
Coordinating Committee by early 2010 and requested the Coordinating
Committee to submit a final evaluation report of the implementation of thefirst phase of the World Programme, based on national evaluation reports,
in cooperation with relevant international, regional and non-governmentalorganizations, to the General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session. Accordingly,
the present evaluation report takes stock of reported progress during thefirst phase against the objectives set out in the plan of action.
C. Evaluation methodology
9. The evaluation methodology was discussed by the Coordinating
Committee at its meetings of February and December 2009. It was agreed
that it would be carried out through a documentary review of primary andsecondary sources of information on national initiatives carried out during
the first phase.

274

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

10. The primary sources of information are the national evaluation reports which were sent in reply to an evaluation questionnaire developed by
the Coordinating Committee and distributed by OHCHR in early 2010 to the
192 States Members of the United Nations.4 As at 21 July 2010, OHCHR had
received 76 responses; the list of countries having submitted national evaluation reports is contained in Annex I to the present report. Many countries
provided detailed answers and supplementary documents. Some countries,
such as Albania, Mexico, Senegal and Zimbabwe, reported having involved
a range of stakeholders in the production of the report. Cambodia notedthat it had deployed a comprehensive methodology involving sampling; datacollection and assessment on the ground; reporting by provincial departments; analysis and discussion by various heads of departments at national
level; drafting and finalization by the central education department; and final approval by top leaders. The national reports were mainly compiled byministries of education; in some countries, other offices dealing with external affairs, human rights, finance and justice were involved or even took thelead. External stakeholders such as non-governmental organizations, youth
representatives and others were rarely involved in producing the national
reports.
11. The evaluation also takes into account information contained ina variety of secondary sources submitted by Governments to the United
Nations in the period 2005-2010, namely:(a) Other correspondence received from Governments on national human rights education initiatives in the context of the World Programme,
including replies to letters from OHCHR/UNESCO and the Coordinating
Committee;(b) Correspondence from Governments concerning the implementation of the International Year of Human Rights Learning;(c) Replies from Governments to the questionnaire of the Human
Rights Council advisory committee on the draft United Nations declaration
on human rights education and training;(d) Governments’ common core documents;(e) National reports submitted to the Working Group on the Universal
Periodic Review.
12. The replies to the evaluation questionnaires were analysed in detail;the consistency in structure made it possible to make cross comparisonsand to identify global trends and common challenges among Governments.

World Programme for Human Rights Education

275

The present report is therefore very largely based on the data containedin the national evaluation reports. It gives examples of national initiatives
drawn from this body of information, which are intended to be illustrative and are by no means exhaustive. The secondary sources of information
were, by contrast, more variable; they addressed different types of issues tovarying levels of depth, making a detailed comparative analysis less feasible
or appropriate. Accordingly, this second body of information was consulted
only for countries that did not submit national evaluation reports (the list of
those countries is contained in annex II to the present report). This dual approach enables the evaluation report to give a sense of global progress while
focusing more deeply on specific issues and the experiences of individual
countries which responded to the questionnaire.
13. No governmental information was available on approximately 60
countries. It may well be that these countries are taking measures related tohuman rights education; however, this report is not making any comments
or drawing any conclusions about them.
14. The evaluation had recourse to over 200 documents, between primary and secondary sources, and there were various methodological issues
to consider in the handling of this volume of information of differing quality
and content. The national evaluation reports varied considerably: they weresometimes incomplete or ambiguous, e.g. containing conflicting or multiple
replies to the same question or lacking in clarity owing to language, handwritten scripts or limited information. Some countries did not follow thequestionnaire structure in their answers; others reported future plans rather
than an assessment of progress to date. Three subnational reports were received from one Government, reflecting the decentralized competence foreducation matters.
15. In order to bring some consistency and to report against the plan ofaction as comprehensively as possible, the analysis was organized according
to each of the five components of the plan of action. The questions in theevaluation questionnaire were divided up as follows:(a) Component one, on policies, includes an analysis of questions 10,
13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23 and 25;(b) Component two, on policy implementation, includes an analysis ofquestions 11, 12 and 22;(c) Component three, on the learning environment, includes an analysis
of questions 17, 19, 20 and 21;

276

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c(d) Component four, on teaching and learning processes and tools, includes an analysis of questions 24 and 26;(e) Component five, on education and professional development ofschool personnel, includes an analysis of questions 27, 28, 29 and 30.
16. The analysis keeps to this structure and aims as far as possible toreport information as it was provided by Governments. An effort was madenot to move information around to answer different questions from thoseintended by the respondent.
17. Finally, it is important to stress that the present report, in accordancewith the plan of action and as reiterated by the Human Rights Council, isbased on national evaluation reports provided by Member States. It is ananalysis of official information provided in those self-assessments; it is not
an independent verification or assessment of the information provided or of
the quality of the actions taken.
II. Action at the national level
A. Policies
18. The first component of the plan of action, policies, involves “developing in a participatory way and adopting coherent educational policies,
legislation and strategies that are human rights-based, including curriculum
improvement and training policies for teachers and other educational personnel” (para. 18 (a)).
Human rights and educational policies
19. All 76 responding Governments state that they have educational
policies which promote human rights education. Of these, 57 report having
policies which explicitly refer to human rights, the right to education andrights-based approaches to the education system. These commitments areintegrated in a range of legal and policy frameworks such as constitutions,education laws and legislation and policies related to specific topics such as
child protection, disability, gender equality, domestic violence, sexual harassment and minority rights.
20. Some countries like El Salvador and Uruguay make specific referencein their policies to human rights education. Nicaragua has a specific law on
the teaching of human rights and the Constitution. In Austria, there are decrees on education for democratic citizenship and human rights education.

World Programme for Human Rights Education

277

A number of other Member States report similar policy commitments but
a closer examination of supporting documents finds that the term “humanrights” is often not used explicitly. They refer to subjects like civic education, citizenship education, peace education, multicultural education andeducation for sustainable development, under which human rights issues
are said to be addressed. Germany cites recommendations of the Standing
Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs on education for
democratic citizenship, education for sustainable and global development
and intercultural education which have been transformed into land law.
21. Some countries have refined their human rights education policies
after reviewing their implementation. Norway developed its first plan of action on human rights in 2000 and is now making fundamental changes to
its education laws in response to feedback received from civil society actors
who identified the fragmented implementation of human rights education
as a challenge.
22. Regional human rights education initiatives may support a coordinated policy approach at the national level. The Arab Plan for Educationon Human Rights has been taken up by Iraq, Oman, Qatar and others. In
Europe, Norway established the European Wergeland Centre in cooperation with the Council of Europe, with a view to offering support to EuropeanStates on education for intercultural understanding, human rights and democratic citizenship. Tunisia collaborates with organizations like the Arab
Institute for Human Rights (Institut arabe des droits de l’Homme) and theCentre of Arab Women for Training and Research.
Human rights in the school curriculum
23. The plan of action calls for the integration of human rights educationin the school curriculum. Most Member States seem to have focused on thiscourse of action. Numerous Governments including Australia, Barbados,
Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Indonesia, Namibia, Zambia and others report that human rights education is integrated in the national curriculum and in educational standards. A few countries teach human rights as a stand-alone subject but many integrate human rights as a cross-cutting issue, most often in
subjects such as citizenship, civic education and social studies, but also inother disciplines such as law, religion, life skills, ethical and moral education, environment, health and physical education and others.

278

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

24. In Costa Rica, human rights, democracy and peace is one of the fourcrosscutting transversal axes of the curriculum, seen as part of daily learning and experience. The Russian Federation has adopted a dual approach,teaching human rights and the rights of the child as a single subject as wellas integrating them in other subjects, such as social sciences or law, as confirmed by a study undertaken in 2007-2008. A related survey found that 93
per cent of students felt their school studies covered human rights and therights of the child. A study in Egypt by the National Council for Human
Rights found that Arabic language and social studies courses in the fourthyear of primary school took human rights into account. In Thailand, humanrights appears in three subject areas: the social, religious and culture subject
area, which covers child rights, human rights standards and mechanisms
and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights; the health and physicaleducation subject area, which covers topics such as consumer protection
and freedom from sexual abuse; and the occupational and technologies subject area, which addresses the right to work. The Syrian Arab Republic hasdeveloped a national curriculum integrating principles and values related tohuman rights, including women’s rights, in diverse subjects in primary andsecondary education.
25. The majority of countries state that “human rights” is a compulsory
subject and only one country reported it to be a completely optional courseof study. Among the countries that reported it to be mandatory, Portugal
said that it was compulsory for elementary school pupils (6 to 15 years ofage); the civic education course explicitly provides for human rights education and there is a mandatory training module for students of 10 to 11 yearsof age referred to as “Citizenship and security” which approaches security
issues from a human rights perspective. Human rights education as part of
the national curriculum is also obligatory in Hungary and in Malaysia where
it is part of subjects such as civics and citizenship education, moral education and Islamic education taught at both primary and secondary level.
Some countries make it optional at certain stages of the school career andmandatory at others.
26. Governments gave detailed responses about the number of hoursof study devoted to these curricular subjects. In most countries at least one
or two hours a week are allocated to subjects which include human rights.
However, it is not clear how extensively human rights are integrated into
those subjects, what is being studied and how much actual time is spent on

World Programme for Human Rights Education279

human rights. Cuba was one of the few countries to provide details showing
the inclusion of specific human rights topics in its general curriculum. In
addition, reference has been made to a number of extra-curricular humanrights activities, for example, the “Human Rights Olympics” organized in
Slovakia since 1997, which involve secondary school students in a nationwide annual competition testing their knowledge and essay-writing skills. In
the Philippines, the Government has extended human rights education to
the non-formal sector in order to reach out-of-school youth.
27. The national evaluation reports mention that the course content isbeing adapted to the needs of pupils of differing ages and abilities. Ukraine
has methodologies that progressively tackle the complexity of human rights
as students become older. In Chile, human rights education takes a comprehensive and staggered approach which addresses human rights issues stepby step, starting from class-level activities to promote peace and tolerance
among young children, and moving to the study of human rights violationscommitted during the military regime for older students. In France, there isa multifaceted programme which looks at notions of individual and collective responsibility. Human rights education starts from looking at concrete
situations and turns to analysing how human rights can respond to thesesituations; it also includes awareness of major human rights documents.
Some countries like El Salvador and Italy integrate human rights education
into early childhood learning and nursery/kindergarten level through age
appropriate activities.
28. On the issue of which institutions have the authority to develop,
approve and change the curriculum, Governments invariably answered that
the Ministry of Education gives final approval. In some States, authority isgiven to an independent body in which the Ministry of Education is one
stakeholder among others. In Costa Rica, for example, the Higher Education
Council comprised of various ministries, representatives of universities,
secondary and primary schools, teachers and provincial boards approves
the curriculum. In Cyprus, the Committee of Experts for the developmentof a new curriculum has held structured consultations with interested
stakeholders such as teachers’ unions as well as parent and student associations. In Madagascar, the Ministry of National Education and the National
Council of Education in partnership with eight national directorates forprivate education approve the curriculum. In some countries, regional organizations have influence in the development, approval and changing of280

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i ccurricula; Guyana reports that the Caribbean Examination Council plays
this role with the approval of its member countries.
Policies concerning textbooks development
29. The development of policy guidelines for writing or revising textbooks that reflect human rights principles is an important contribution tohuman rights education. The majority of Governments (39 out of 76) said
that they had such guidelines; two explicitly said that they did not, the rest
did not respond clearly. In Jordan, a matrix of human rights, culture of peaceand common universal values was prepared by Jordanian human rights experts to act as a reference for curriculum planners and textbook writers.
In Peru, the Government took the approach of defining key principles on
which such texts should be based, such as multiculturalism, equality and inclusion. In Cambodia, human rights education is incorporated in textbooks
within the “Life skills” teaching framework; the same applies to Gambia. The
Philippines reports that the Department of Education has issued criteria forassessing whether texts are free from ideological, religious, racial and gender prejudices. Responses to this question from other countries sometimes
suggested that guidance may be somewhat limited, e.g. one country referred
only to gender equality.
30. Only a minority of Governments responding to the evaluation questionnaire (21 out of 76) could confirm that textbooks had been developedin accordance with specific guidelines. El Salvador cites specific textbooks
used in the school system which cover human rights, including national
and international laws. Thailand is one of a small number of countries tohave carried out a review of textbooks in order to identify gaps requiring
attention. There seem to be very few Governments which produce textbooks themselves; one example is the Education Centre for Research andDevelopment which is the sole public body in Lebanon with the authority toissue textbooks related to civic education. Most Governments appear only
to set curriculum guidelines, which are not always mandatory, and then allow commercial companies, private authors, civil society groups, schools
and others to develop textbooks on their own. The process of approvalseems to vary considerably; the Czech Republic has a certification process
while others take a more informal approach. Governments like Norway andthe United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland give schools theWorld Programme for Human Rights Education

281

autonomy to choose their own materials, making it inappropriate for theGovernment to set tight guidelines on textbook content.
Policies concerning the learning environment
31. The plan of action promotes human rights practice in all aspects ofschool life. Few countries could provide details of national or subnational
policies that promote a human rights approach to school governance, management, disciplinary procedures, inclusion policies and other regulations
and practices affecting school culture and access to education. The replies
tend to make ad hoc reference to general policies already mentioned suchas child protection, inclusion, gender equity, non-discrimination, coexistence, violence, child-friendly schools and so on. There were nonethelesssome examples of these types of issues being addressed. Gambia, Spain andothers state that these issues are covered by school management manuals.
In Mauritius, the school management manual also applies to the private sector education. Slovenian schools have a school education plan and a schoolcode of conduct.
Policies concerning teacher training
32. The overall approach to teacher training seems ad hoc. There are only
a few examples of a comprehensive policy on teacher training in accordancewith the plan of action. A fair number of countries (15) did not respond at
all or said they had no such policy. A recurrent reason relates to the issueof academic freedom, independence and institutional autonomy for higher
education establishments. Norway, for example, says that the Government
may not instruct such institutions on the content of teaching and researchbut can set a national curriculum for certain subjects; from 2010, future
graduates will cover child rights from a national and international perspective. The Philippines reports that a 1998 Department of Education orderprovides for the training of teachers to become human rights teachers.
Final observations
33. Overall, an analysis of primary source information shows that all 76
respondent Governments have reported policy-level commitments with regard to human rights education to some degree; the secondary source information analysis shows that approximately 32 additional countries have relevant policy statements in place. The fact that in many cases human rights

282

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

education is said to be covered by related subjects, such as peace education,
democratic citizenship education, civic education, education for sustainable
development or life skills education, or as a cross-curricular issue, makes it
difficult to draw firm conclusions on how far human rights principles areembodied in educational policies. Efforts made to integrate human rights
education into national curricula seem particularly encouraging, while other policy areas seem to be overlooked, in particular as far as teacher training
is concerned.
B. Policy implementation
34. The second component of the plan of action, policy implementation,refers to “planning the implementation of the above-mentioned educational
policies by taking appropriate organizational measures and by facilitating
the involvement of all stakeholders” (para. 18 (b)).
Overall national human rights education strategies and plans
35. The plan of action recommends the elaboration and disseminationof a comprehensive national implementation strategy with regard to human rights education in the school system. Nearly all Governments reporthaving a national implementation strategy on human rights education, notnecessarily developed in the context of the World Programme; only very
few say that they have no strategy at all — sometimes because their federal political structures preclude the possibility of overall national planning.
Examples of comprehensive national initiatives include Burkina Faso, whichdeveloped a strategy on the promotion and protection of human rights in2008. In Guatemala, the peace accords set out the need to develop a national
civic education programme for democracy and peace, which promote human rights, the renewal of political culture and the peaceful resolution of
conflicts. The implementation plan involved assessing needs, conducting forums and surveys and the provision of training to educators by the national
human rights institution (Procuraduría de los Derechos Humanos). Tunisia
established a National Commission on Human Rights Education in April
1996 presided over by the Ministry of Education, to be in charge of putting
in place a related national strategy. Under Jordan’s human rights education
plan, the National Commission for Education, Culture and Science has been
appointed as a liaison between the Ministry of Education and other nationalorganizations; it focuses on coordination arrangements, curriculum devel-

World Programme for Human Rights Education

283

opment, training and collaboration with bodies such as the National Centreof Human Rights. In Qatar, a supreme committee was formed comprisingboth national ministries and UNESCO to supervise child rights educationin schools; it has developed a national action plan to provide educationalguides for teachers which align international principles with Islamic culture.
Croatia has a comprehensive national human rights education programme
which was developed in the second half of the 1990s under the auspicesof the National Human Rights Education Committee established by theGovernment. Morocco has made a major effort to integrate human rights
education into the curriculum, programmes and manuals and raises awareness about its national programme on occasions such as Human Rights Day,
International Children’s Day and International Women’s Day.
36. A majority of countries report that human rights education is included either fully or partially in national plans and strategies on humanrights, the fight against racism and discrimination, gender equality, poverty
reduction, primary and secondary education, education for all and education for sustainable development. The national evaluation reports provide
examples of countries taking this approach. In Costa Rica, human rights
education is dealt with in the context of programmes related to violencein schools, the participation of students and relations with the wider community, gender equality and the rights of disabled persons. In New Zealand,
human rights education is dealt with in the context of the rights of minority and indigenous groups, resulting in a curriculum document which wasdeveloped with the full participation of indigenous groups and which addresses their interests. In Switzerland, human rights education is part of
the national plan for education for sustainable development (2007-2014),
while in the United Kingdom (Scotland), the Government is providing over
£9 million in funding during the period 2008-2011 to organizations tackling
racist attitudes and working to improve the lives of ethnic minority communities through, among others, education initiatives.
37. The involvement of young people in the development of national
human rights education strategies, as recommended in the plan of action,
through youth associations or student parliaments, has been reported bycertain countries including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia,
Mauritania, the Sudan, Turkey and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of ). Youthorganizations were involved in the development of the Bolivian national
human rights action plan known as Bolivia Digna Para Vivir Bien 2009-

284

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

2013 and in the 2002 National Conference of Education for Citizenship andCivics in Madagascar. They are represented in the Committee on Educationfor Health and Citizenship in Morocco. Kuwait reports that students wereinvolved in the development of a national human rights education strategy
through student councils. Despite some examples, the practice of involving
stakeholders outside governmental circles in the development of national
strategies does not appear to be widespread.
38. In several cases, countries report having a national implementation strategy for human rights education in the school system but this is
not substantiated; the replies often refer back to higher-level policy commitments (e.g. education laws) or fragmented implementation measures
such as textbook design, teacher training or curriculum content rather thana holistic strategic document setting out objectives, roles and responsibilities, timelines, activities and so on. The website addresses provided by someGovernments likewise often refer back to general legislation. Some countries emphasize the way forward rather than existing initiatives.
Funding for human rights education
39. The plan of action encourages the allocation of specific funding forhuman rights education by optimizing already committed national funds;
by coordinating external funds; and by creating partnerships between the
public and private sectors. According to the replies, funds for human rights
education in all countries seem to come from the general education budget
and it is not usually possible to be more specific about allocations because
human rights education is part of wider curriculum subjects. Moreover,many countries said that allocations could not be tracked because schools
have discretion in how the budget is spent. Only one country, Switzerland,
could give some quantification based on federal allocations; the Federal
Department of Home Affairs funds projects against racism and humanrights education (including the rights of the child) in schools, as well as
projects run by the Foundation for Education and Development. A numberof countries such as Belarus and Portugal reported projects being supported by regional and international organizations; however, in all cases funds
provided by external donors were not itemized in Government responses.
Malaysia pointed out that supplementary budget for human rights education may come from school funds and parent-teacher association activities.

World Programme for Human Rights Education

285

Research
40. There are some examples of countries supporting and promoting
research in line with the plan of action. For instance, the Russian Federationand Slovakia have both carried out research on teacher attitudes to humanrights education. Thailand has drawn on external academic research to review the progress of human rights education in schools.
Final observations
41. The 76 countries that responded to the questionnaire affirm to be
putting policy implementation measures in place. An analysis of the secondary sources shows an additional 43 countries taking implementation steps
with regard to human rights education in schools. A systematic approach,however, starting with a comprehensive analysis of the state of human rights
education in all areas of the plan of action, including policies, curricula andtextbooks, teacher training, teaching methods and the school environment,
as well as an assessment of remaining needs and the establishment of specificobjectives and priorities, is rarely in place. Some countries have undergone
such a process but not necessarily in the context of the World Programme,
rather in the framework of specific national developments.
C. The learning environment
42. A learning environment conducive to human rights education “respects and promotes human rights and fundamental freedoms. It provides
the opportunity for all school actors (students, teachers, staff and administrators and parents) to practise human rights through real-life activities. It
enables children to express their views freely and to participate in schoollife” (para. 18 (g) of the plan of action).
School-level initiatives
43. Some Governments provided details of what is being done in thisarea. Argentina reports rules on school life which promotes the principles
of non-discrimination, participation and accountability. Paraguay has campaigns on school violence and common values; Costa Rica has programmes
on peace, environmental issues, the abuse of power and active citizenship;
New Zealand has activities on restorative justice, bullying and harassment;
Malta is running a national school campaign on the eradication of poverty
and social exclusion; Burkina Faso promotes inclusive education to elimi-

286

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i cnate all forms of discrimination against children with special needs. In the
Democratic Republic of the Congo human rights education is promoted by
the UNESCO associated schools network, whereas in Monaco UNESCO
clubs have been established within schools. Senegal focuses on meetingthe basic needs of health and nutrition in schools through the provisionof school meals, sanitary facilities and medical care as well as programmes
on citizen action and international humanitarian law and clubs for humanrights, gender and peace education. Guyana also has a focus on health; anumber of schools have established student health clubs which promote
self-esteem and awareness of the dangers of drug use and sexually transmitted diseases. Most secondary schools have student councils; there arealso sports clubs, debating clubs and scouts groups, for example, that allow
students to express themselves.
Active participation of students
44. Most countries feel that they are making at least average if not comprehensive progress in providing students with opportunities for self-expression, for organizing their own activities and advocating their interests,
and for participation in decisionmaking.
Only one country reported not being able to address these issues at all.
Furthermore, when it comes to integrating human rights in the learning environment through school governance and management, nearly half (32) ofrespondents rated themselves as making at least average progress.
45. A number of countries have institutionalized policies and mechanisms which foster youth expression and participation. In France, students
have the right to assemble, publish and display and, from the age of 16, theright to form associations. They elect student representatives to institutional boards both at collège (11-14 years) and at lycée (15-18 years) levels. Thereis also the countrywide Conseil national de la vie lycéenne chaired by the
Minister of National Education. In Belarus, legislation exists to give children
the right to express themselves and to participate in the management of educational institutions. Structures to give children voice are also often institutionalized, for example, children’s parliaments in Lithuania and Slovenia
which have access to policymakers; student governments in Albania; andhuman rights committees and human rights groups in Iraq. In Zimbabwe,
the system of school prefects and institutions such as student parliaments,
junior councils and youth round tables facilitate the participation of students

World Programme for Human Rights Education287

in school governance. Jordan is supporting student expression through therole of school press and radio, opportunities for dialogue between students
and teachers/administrators through meetings and the creation of student
parliaments. Guatemala, New Zealand, Senegal, Uruguay and others confirm that student participation in school governance structures is facilitated through mechanisms like student councils, parliaments and elected
representatives.
Involvement of schools with the local community
46. The majority of Governments consider that this is happening tosome degree if not comprehensively; only a small minority (8) report that
it is not occurring in their national context. Parent-teacher associations arecommonplace. Estonia reports, for example, that parents associations areactive on child rights. In Guyana, parent teacher associations and schoolboards comprise members of the surrounding community including parents, citizens and representatives of various interest groups. Elected officials at both regional and neighbourhood council levels are also involved,
as the public school budget is implemented through the regional administration system. Israel reports existing dialogue between students, parents
and teachers on human rights principles. In Belgium (Flemish community),“broad or community schools” aim to strengthen ties between the school
and the local environment including local councils and civil society; a “broad
school” is a network of organizations around a school which try to assure
the personal and social development of children and youngsters. In Oman,
parent-teacher councils, women’s associations, ministry representatives andlocal dignitaries have a significant role in the concept of “learning villages”
which use community-based approaches to eradicate illiteracy; other initiatives include the connecting cultures initiative, Outbound Oman and theyouth summit. Both Madagascar and Montenegro collaborate with nongovernmental organizations in the promotion of human rights education.
In Honduras, the Committee of Relatives of the Disappeared Detainees in
Honduras (Comité de Familiares de Detenidos Desaparecidos en Honduras)
gives talks and seminars to students. In the United Kingdom (Northern
Ireland), the Government has been cooperating with Amnesty Internationaland other stakeholders in the “Lift Off ” programme which has provided resources and materials to support the curriculum.

288

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Monitoring and evaluation systems for human rights education
47. On the issue of setting up monitoring systems to measure factors
such as the respect for human rights in teaching practice, teaching quality
with respect to human rights education, respect for human rights principles
in school management and change in student knowledge and behaviour,most countries assess themselves as making average or comprehensive progress. Only two feel they are not doing anything at all. Some countries notebeing unable to have a national approach because of their federal structure.
48. A number of countries such as Argentina, the Czech Republic,
France, Serbia, Slovenia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom (England) andothers make reference to ongoing evaluation and monitoring systems, assessments and school inspections but it is not clear how far these encompass human rights education. Some report more specific initiatives. Slovakia
has been implementing a monitoring and evaluation project since 2005 on
the scope and quality of human rights education in primary and secondary schools as part of the national plan for human rights education in the
education system. The Ministry of Education in Lebanon with international support is carrying out a civic education survey. Inspectors in Belgium(Flemish community) monitor whether and how the “Decree on participation”, which was approved by the Flemish Parliament on 1 April 2004 as
a legal framework for participation in schools, is being implemented. The
cross-curriculum attainment targets, especially citizenship education, haverecently been evaluated and show the positive impact of citizenship education and democratic school organization on the development of knowledge
and democratic attitudes among pupils.
Final observations
49. Most countries responding to the evaluation questionnaire felt they
were making at least moderate progress in ensuring that the learning environment promotes human rights education, while the secondary analysis
only found a handful of countries which appear to have related initiatives.
The respondents highlighted several examples of national-level initiatives
which promote the engagement and participation of students and interaction between schools and the wider community; it seems to be widely understood that human rights education goes beyond the formal curriculum,as its scope is to equip all school actors, and in particular students, with notWorld Programme for Human Rights Education

289

only knowledge but also skills to be active citizens and human rights advocates in their societies.
D. Teaching and learning
50. The fourth component of the plan of action recommends that “allteaching and learning processes and tools [be] rights-based (for instance,
the content and objectives of the curriculum, participatory and democratic
practices and methodologies, appropriate materials including the review
and revision of existing textbooks, etc.)” (para. 18 (d)). The present section
focuses on issues other than the school curriculum, which has already been
dealt with in section A above.
Teaching methods
51. The majority of Governments (over 60) felt they were making average if not comprehensive progress in introducing learning methodologies inhuman rights education activities which are child-friendly, learner-centred
and encourage participation. Only a handful did not answer or said they
had not made progress. Some countries provided further details showing
how this was taking place. Thailand launched a child-friendly schools programme in six provinces in 1996, schools in Lithuania and Slovenia are specifically encouraged to use active learning methods, and Peru has developed
a participatory project strategy in the area of citizenship and civic education. Namibia and Malaysia refer to strategies which include learner-centred
participation. Cyprus reports participatory teaching and active learning
methods such as projects, group work, drama and case studies. Cuba reports that civic education uses methods such as analysis of moral dilemmas, individual and collective reflection, the study of legal documents inthe context of significant situations for moral education, critical commentsof a text, self expressive exercises and decision-making. Methods applied in
Malta include debates, group work and role play.
Teaching and learning materials
52. Nearly all Governments (around 70) report that teacher guides,
manuals, texts and other materials in primary and secondary education
cover human rights principles either comprehensively or at least to an average degree. Only three countries reported that this was not happening.
Material development is not always in the hand of the national Government

290

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

and approval processes vary. The majority of the countries allow others suchas publishing houses, individuals, authors, non-governmental organizations and international organizations to play a role. Switzerland is one ofa few countries to report having carried out a comprehensive review andidentifying gaps in materials. Angola is producing manuals on human rights
education for primary and secondary schools. Among the materials developed in the United Kingdom (Scotland) to tackle racial discrimination are“Educating for race equality — a toolkit for Scottish teachers” and “Showracism the red card”. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, pedagogical materials in use include those produced by religious institutions. Nongovernmental organizations also offer teaching materials, for example
in Germany, Israel and Estonia (produced by the Estonian Association of
Parents or the Estonian Union for Child Welfare). El Salvador uses materials
developed, inter alia, by the national human rights institution (Procuraduría
para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos), Universidad Centroamericana“José Simeón Cañas”, the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights andother bodies. Countries like Algeria, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Madagascar,
Slovakia and Switzerland report using materials produced by internationalorganizations. For example, the Ministry of Education of Cyprus promotes
the use of “Compasito”, the Council of Europe’s manual on human rights
education for children, while Slovakia and Switzerland have translated or
adapted “Compass” (for young people) for use at schools. Kazakhstan reports using a publication of the International Organization for Migration forlessons concerning slavery, while Monaco makes use of materials from theInternational Organization of La Francophonie.
Final observations
53. Most Governments which responded to the questionnaire feel they
are making at least average, if not comprehensive, progress in developing
and disseminating teaching and learning materials and methodologies forhuman rights education. The secondary analysis found brief references
showing that approximately 19 additional countries are taking some steps
to tackle these issues.
E. Education and professional development of teachers and otherpersonnel
54. The fifth component of the plan of action focuses on “providing
the teaching profession and school leadership, through pre- and in-service

World Programme for Human Rights Education

291

training, with the necessary knowledge, understanding, skills and competencies to facilitate the learning and practice of human rights in schools, aswell as with appropriate working conditions and status” (para. 18 (e)).
Teacher training
55. Around half the respondents (38) reported that human rights areincluded in three types of training: pre-service, in-service and head teacher
training; some say that human rights are included in certain types of training and not others (head teacher training seems to incorporate human rights
least of all); and only one Government said there was no such training at any
stage. There were some ambiguous replies concerning the inclusion and status of human rights education in teacher training, but generally the analysis
shows that a minority of Governments (21) say this training is mandatory.
These include Belarus, where it has been mandatory for all higher education
institutions since 1998/99; and Kazakhstan, where teachers are expected tohave knowledge of the law and rights, including legal instruments like theConvention on the Rights of the Child. In the Philippines, core trainers in
the regions provide human rights training to others. Human rights education has been compulsory for teachers and other education staff in Serbia
for 10 years; those who teach civic education (including some subjects explicitly concerned with human rights) are required to undergo specified
training. In Mauritania, human rights generally constitute a separate test,
independent of others, in the context of examinations for the teaching profession. The “Pilot project on education for the enjoyment of human rights”
in Colombia, which seeks to implement human rights education at the preschool, primary and secondary levels, includes pre-service and in-service
training of teachers and other educational staff in pedagogical methods forhuman rights and citizenship education.
56. Obligations vary depending on the type of training. In some countries such as Peru, initial human rights training is mandatory but in-service
training is optional. The situation is the same in Portugal, where education
for citizenship, including for human rights, is a compulsory curricular domain of initial teacher training and is optional in continuous training. In
Spain, specific targets have been set for the inclusion of human rights in
Masters courses including degrees in early childhood education and elementary education. In Ukraine, it is a mandatory part of five yearly refresher
courses attended by teachers. In the United Kingdom (England), prospec-

292

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i ctive teachers need to achieve set standards, including in the area of humanrights education, in order to achieve qualified status.
57. Even where it is mandatory, there may flexibility in the way training is provided on the ground in terms of hours and methods used.
Governments often gave details on how many hours are offered on teacher
training courses but it is impossible to generalize from this information;
there is major variation with courses lasting from 1 to 2 hours to 100 hours.
Furthermore, it is not known how much specific time is allocated to humanrights education since it is usually integrated into wider subjects. In Japan,
teacher training for new and experienced teachers is provided for by law
and implementation is mandatory; the contents of the training are left to thediscretion of prefectural boards of education working within the parametersof central guidance. The National Centre for Teachers’ Development also
provides a course on “Training for development of human rights education
instructors”.
Evaluation of teacher training in human rights education
58. Such evaluation does not appear to occur systematically. Most
respondents suggest that this happens through participant feedback (e.g.
Estonia and Israel) or through evaluations by the institutions running thesecourses (Honduras and Mexico). In Lithuania, at the end of teacher training
courses, trainees fill in assessment forms on the relevance, utility and impact of training activities. In Japan, participants are able to appraise both thecourses and themselves during the training provided by the National Centre
for Teachers’ Development. There are a few examples of a broader approach.
In Cyprus, the recently established Centre for Educational Research and
Evaluation in the Ministry of Education and Culture undertakes research on
the effectiveness of teacher training programmes. In Algeria, teachers areassessed by education inspectors and heads of school who watch the teaching of human rights in practice, for example, by observing classes on genderequality or the African Charter.
Training resources
59. Nearly all Governments confirmed that the sharing and dissemination of resources and materials to support teacher training was taking
place. Practice and methodologies vary enormously; dissemination is done
through books, publications, CDs, videos, workshops and seminars. The re-World Programme for Human Rights Education

293

sponses from Member States do not always give a sense of what the scale ofthese activities might be. Methods for disseminating information include
networking opportunities. In Cyprus, inspectors exchange ideas and learning through networking. Croatia has set up a school network of county
teacher councils (regional councils) for each school subject including education for democratic citizenship/human rights education since 2006 sothat the best teachers are appointed as county coordinators. Their teachingload and pay are adjusted to allow them to carry out these activities.
60. Some countries using Web portals to give teachers access to materials, e.g. Austria (www.politik-lernen.at), Costa Rica (www.educatico.
ed.cr), France (eduscol.education.fr), Switzerland (www.globaleducation.
ch) and Belgium (French community) (www.enseignement.be). The United
Kingdom (England) has set up a portal for citizenship and education for sustainable development (www.citized.info) with some 416 resources on humanrights education. It is also collaborating with networks of non-governmentalorganizations and universities in the sharing of information. Mexico has set
up a library on civic education and ethics, as well as a website and information and documentation centre on indigenous education. In Austria, every
teacher has the possibility to order free of charge or to download teaching
and information material.
Teacher recruitment and promotion policies
61. Nearly all Governments affirmed that policies for teacher recruitment, retention and promotion reflect human rights principles; only sevensaid they were not meeting this standard. Mauritius further explained that
this is achieved through manuals on school management and personnel
management which detail the conditions of work and the rights of employees; furthermore, private secondary schools which fall under the purview of
the Private Secondary School Authority have parallel regulations for schools
and teachers. Côte d’Ivoire referred to civil service regulations and labourcodes. In Japan, the recruitment and promotion of teachers is administeredin accordance with principles of equality and non-discrimination as statedin the Local Public Service Act. The boards of education of eight prefectures/cities out of 65 expressly include in their vacancy announcements strong
awareness or respect for human rights as a requisite for hiring teachers.

294

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Final observations
62. Most countries that responded to the questionnaire feel they areproviding opportunities for teacher training. However, the absence of detailed supporting information gives the impression that, overall, such training is haphazard, optional and variable in terms of quality and time, and withlimited access to materials and tools. The report on the recent UNESCO
consultation on the implementation of the 1974 Recommendation concerning human rights education noted that “several countries raised obstacles
concerning insufficient pre-service and in-service training as well as the lackof clear guidelines and relevant materials for teachers and school personnel,
including managers and administrators at the local level. Teachers are often
overwhelmed by the diverse demands put on them”.5 The analysis of secondary sources found an additional 18 countries taking up the issue of teacher
training on human rights education.
III. Conclusions and recommendations
63. In paragraph 27 of the plan of action, Member States were encouraged to undertake, as a minimum action in the first phase, the first two stages of national implementation of the World Programme for Human Rights
Education, i.e. a situation analysis (stage one) and the setting of priorities
and development of a national implementation strategy (stage two). The
majority of Member States have confirmed that they are now, by and large,
implementing human rights education programmes.
64. Some Governments acknowledge that the World Programme has
played a role in facilitating progress at the national level. Several countries
find it to be an important influence, including Algeria, Jordan and Venezuela(Bolivarian Republic of ), which say that it was an important spur to national
action. A few countries report activities specifically aimed at promoting
the World Programme, for instance Côte d’Ivoire held a seminar at the official launch of national activities on the World Programme, and Greece reports featuring information about the World Programme on the Ministryof Education’s website. However, a number of countries report not to haveused this international framework as an opportunity to increase implementation of human rights education in their school systems; national action appears to have been occurring somewhat independently of the proclamationof the World Programme.

World Programme for Human Rights Education

295

65. There continue to be challenges in national implementation. Amongthe commonly identified gaps are the absence of explicit policies and detailed implementation strategies for human rights education and the lackof systematic approaches to the production of materials, the training ofteachers and the promotion of a learning environment which fosters humanrights values. The decentralization of political structures and/or education
provision in a number of countries further complicates the implementationof a centralized model.
66. The Coordinating Committee makes the following recommendations to Governments wishing to take further steps to implement humanrights education in the school system:(a) Take stock of national progress as measured against the detailed
guidance provided in the plan of action in order to identify gaps, possible
strategies and good practice;(b) Review the following issues which have been identified in the present report to see if they are relevant to the national context and require
attention:(i) Overall review of the status of human rights education in the
primary and secondary school system and development of a comprehensive implementation strategy, taking into consideration the guidance proposed by the plan of action;(ii) And specifically, among other issues, the need for educational
policy commitments explicitly referring to the human rights framework; development and implementation of policies on teacher training
which make human rights education part of mandatory teacher qualification requirements; review of the national curricula to clarify how andto what extent human rights education is dealt with, including throughintegration of human rights in other subjects which are assumed to address them; and allocation of funding to human rights education as an
identifiable item in the context of national education budgets;(c) Make greater use of the human rights education materials and tools
developed by national, regional and international institutions and organizations within or beyond the context of the World Programme, including
information technology platforms, as a way of addressing resource issues at
the national level such as the lack of funding, education and learning materials and specifically teacher-training materials, and in order to draw inspiration from other national practices;296

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c(d) Take steps to ensure that private education providers are also integrating human rights education into their services;(e) Participate in international and regional initiatives with regard topolicy and programme development in the area of human rights education.
67. By establishing the open-ended World Programme for Human
Rights Education, and more recently by launching a new international initiative concerning the development of a United Nations declaration on human rights education and training, the international community has reaffirmed its long-term commitment to pursue human rights education, which
was already embodied in many international instruments. Although significant steps have been taken, progress remains uneven when considered froma global perspective. The World Programme’s first phase has neverthelessprovided an opportunity for focusing the attention of the international community on the importance of human rights education in the school system.
68. While the World Programme now transitions to its second phase(2010-2014) with a new focus on a variety of different sectors (i.e. higher
education, teachers and educators, civil servants, law enforcement officials and military personnel), work on primary and secondary-level education needs to continue. Governments are encouraged to build on existingachievements, consolidate them and exert sustained efforts to advance human rights education in the school system as a holistic process concerning
many areas of action, including educational policies, policy implementation measures, the learning environment, teaching and learning processes and tools and education and professional development of teachers andother education personnel. The plan of action for the first phase of theWorld Programme continues to constitute a significant guidance tool inthis area, and the open-ended World Programme remains a common collective framework for action as well as a platform for cooperation between
Governments and all other relevant stakeholders; its potential, in terms ofenhancing national action towards the building of a universal culture of human rights, needs to be further exploited.
Endnotes
1. Although the first phase of the World Programme was initially launched forthree years, until 2007, the Human Rights Council subsequently decided, in its resolution 6/24 (28 September 2007), to extend the first phase by two more years until
the end of 2009.

World Programme for Human Rights Education297

2. For ease of reference, OHCHR and UNESCO jointly published the Plan of
Action in a booklet, which can be accessed in all six official languages of the United
Nations at www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/education/training/planaction.htm.
3. The Coordinating Committee is composed of 12 entities: the Office of theUnited Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Joint United Nations
Programme on HIV/AIDS, the United Nations Development Group, the United
Nations Development Programme, the Department of Public Information, theUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the United
Nations Population Fund, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, the United Nations Children’s Fund, the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and the World Bank. The Council ofEurope has participated as an observer.
4. The text of the questionnaire can be consulted at www2.ohchr.org/english/
issues/education/training/evaluationWPHRE.htm.
5. UNESCO document 35 C/INF.23 (available from http://unesdoc.unesco.org),
para. 21.

298

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Annex I
List of Governments that responded to the evaluation questionnaire
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Albania
Algeria
AngolaArgentina
Australia
Austria
Barbados
BelarusBelgium
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Côte d’Ivoire
Cuba
CyprusCzech Republic
Democratic Republic of the
Congo
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
FranceGambiaGermany
GreeceGuatemala
GuyanaHonduras
Hungary
Indonesia
Iraq
Israel
Japan

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

JordanKazakhstan
KuwaitLebanonLithuania
Madagascar
Malaysia
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
MexicoMonacoMontenegro
MoroccoNamibia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
NorwayOman
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Portugal
Qatar (submissions from two
different entities)
Russian Federation
Senegal (submission from two
different entities)
SerbiaSlovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sudan
Switzerland
Syrian Arab Republic
Thailand299

World Programme for Human Rights Education

•
•

•
•

TurkeyUnited Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland (separate
submissions fromEngland, Scotland and Northern
Ireland)Ukraine••••Uruguay
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republicof)ZambiaZimbabwe

Annex II
List of Governments that submitted information on national human rights
education initiatives in contexts other than the preparation of the present report
Information on human rights education in countries whose Governments did not
respond to the final evaluation questionnaire was also taken into account in the preparationof the present report. This information was found in various secondary sources as notedin the introduction to the report.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Afghanistan
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
BurundiCameroon
Cape Verde
CanadaChad
China
Croatia
Denmark
Dominican Republic
EcuadorEquatorial Guinea
Ethiopia
Finland
India

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Indonesia
Gabon
Georgia
GuineaIcelandItaly
Kyrgyzstan
Lao People’s Democratic
Republic
LatviaLesothoLiberia
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Mongolia
Mozambique
Netherlands
Niger

300

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

H u m a n R i g h t s E d u c at i o n i n A s i a - Pa c i f i c

Pakistan
PanamaPolandRepublic of Korea
Republic of Moldova
Romania
RwandaSamoa
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
South Africa
Sri Lanka

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

SwedenThe former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia
Timor-Leste
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan