Compulsory curricula and human rights: a revised framework for balancing competing interests

Abstract This paper assesses the effectiveness of current legal standards in resolving rights-based disputes arising from compulsory curricula in schools, an issue of growing significance as such teaching expands in the areas of sexuality, relationship and religious education. Focusing on Article 2 of Protocol 1 (P1-2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), it critiques the current reliance on the ‘objective, critical, and pluralistic’ (OCP) standard, examining its alignment with the core purpose of P1-2: preventing state monopolisation in education through safeguarding qualified parental choice. The analysis identifies shortcomings in P1-2 case law, particularly the subjective nature of determining when teaching is OCP, the negation of parental objections and the neglect of children’s rights in the assessment process. To address these issues, the paper proposes a revised review framework which prioritises a justification test that recognises parental concerns, reduces reliance on public interest justifications and acknowledges the legitimacy of children’s rights as grounds for limiting parental objections. The paper argues that this refined approach better aligns with the article’s foundational purpose whilst fostering an enlarged space for the balanced consideration of competing interests and rights in educational controversies.