Comment 1 on Article 29, thus far the only General Comment on
the CRC. It is worth quoting this in full.
“The aims and values reflected in this article are stated in
quite general terms and their implications are potentially very
wide ranging. This seems to have led many States parties to
assume that it is unnecessary, or even inappropriate, to
ensure that the relevant principles are reflected in legislation
or in administrative directives. This assumption is
unwarranted. In the absence of any specific formal
endorsement in national law or policy, it seems unlikely that
the relevant principles are or will be used to genuinely inform
educational policies... The effective promotion of article 29
(1) requires the fundamental reworking of curricula to include
the various aims of education and the systematic revision of
textbooks and other teaching materials and technologies, as
well as school policies. Approaches which do no more than
seek to superimpose the aims and values of the article on
the existing system without encouraging any deeper changes
are clearly inadequate.”
(Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2001, paras 17, 18 &
19)
The General Comment draws attention to a number of key issues
in the context of this new tension between the two different forms
of cultural relativism, inter- and intra-national. Firstly, it
acknowledges that, on the whole, national education systems do
not embody the values of Article 29, neither human rights values,
nor those of pluralism and diversity. Instead, they continue to
invoke the values traditionally embedded in national education
systems, the older cultural relativism of nations and national
identities. Secondly, it claims, justifiably, that Article 29 values will
require a reorientation of the aims, content and delivery of
education; simple add-on approaches will not suffice. The General
Comment seems to be arguing in favour of the more complex
18