Journal of International Social Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2014, 84-91.

84 | P a g e

Website: http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585

Violations of the Educational Rights of Disadvantaged Youth in the Global Age

Dr Toni Fuss Kirkwood-Tucker and Dr Alejandro José Gallard-Martinez.

Florida State University and Georgia Southern University

About the authors

Toni Fuss Kirkwood-Tucker is Professor Emeritá at Florida Atlantic University and currently a

Visiting Associate Professor in the School of Teacher Education at Florida State University.

Alejandro José Gallard-Martinez is Professor and Goizueta Distinguished Chair and the

Director for the Georgia Center for Educational Renewal at Georgia Southern University in

the Teaching and Learning Department.

___________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

In the postmodern age, the ubiquitous processes of globalization have exacerbated
violations of the basic human right to an education among underprivileged youth around the
world. Researchers and policymakers have not given serious consideration to the criticality
of context when addressing wide differences in academic performance between mainstream
and disenfranchised youth in the United States and other nations. Cultural capital, habitus
(Bourdieu, 1977), and other contextual mitigating factors (CMFs) (Gallard M., et al., 2013)
act as important mitigating cultural, economic, and political contextual factors affecting the
learning of students, and leading to educational inequities. Yet, educational policymakers
and stakeholders have failed to be explicit about the influence of such CMFs on global
differences in educational delivery, as well as data on educational achievement and
performance within and across countries. Further, such failures of recognition have led
directly to violations of educational rights promulgated in the United Nations’ Convention of
the Rights of the Child (CRC). Only by making CMFs explicit and understand their impact on
all education reform efforts can decision-makers help disadvantaged youth to attain an
equitable education and find their place in the global age.

Keywords: Contextual mitigating factors, educational rights, cultural capital, educational inequities.

__________________________________________________________________________________

In this age of globalization, educational researchers and policymakers have failed to consider the
criticality of context when addressing educational inequities in the lives of disadvantaged

i
youth in

the United States and around the world. This failure represents a direct violation of the basic human
right to education of children and adolescents.

ii
We recognize that some may view this position as

extreme. After all, with the United Nations adoption of the Convention of the Rights of the Child in

Journal of International Social Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2014, 84-91.

85 | P a g e

Website: http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585

1989, institutional recognition of the rights of young people reached an unprecedented level.
iii
Yet,

despite the efforts of school systems, educational reform movements, national foundations,
philanthropies, the United Nations (UN), and non-governmental organizations, young people around
the world continue to be deprived of their right to an education. Further, contextual mitigating
factors (CMFs) such as persistent poverty, classism, racism, sexism, and differential access to social
and economic resources continue to impede educational attainment for all an in particular young
people around the globe. In fact, it is our contention that underprivileged youth are prevented from
advancing academically, socially, and economically precisely because decision-makers have not
addressed CMFs as the fundamental causes of educational inequality. Among the most potent of
these factors are poverty and malnutrition, health issues, gender inequity, the physical conditions of
schools, the quality of teachers, and the lack of pedagogical resources required for a quality world-
class education.
Our perspectives as international educators have informed our efforts to improve teaching and
learning throughout the world. Our theoretical positions have been shaped by our experiences: in
one case, extensive work on globalizing curricula and pedagogy in teacher education programs and
schools in the United States and Russia; in the other, years of professional engagement with national
education policymakers at the ministerial level and with teachers in numerous countries, including
the United States.

Defining Globalization

For billions of individuals around the world education is vital to advancement. Yet, for many young
people the ubiquitous process of globalization has exacerbated flagrant violations of the basic right
to education for millions of disadvantaged students around the world. For purposes of this
discussion, we use Stiglitz’ (2003) description of globalization:

…the closer integration of the countries and peoples of the world which has been brought
about by the enormous reduction of costs in transportation and communication, and the
breaking down of artificial barriers to the flows of goods, services, capital, knowledge and
(to a lesser extent), people across borders (p. 9).

In the turn toward globalization some may see the promise of boundless economic opportunities for
all and the eradication of poverty and misery within the arena of a massive global culture. In reality,
however, globalization has generated enormous detrimental consequences such as continued
illiteracy, gender inequity, economic exploitation, racism, classism, and environmental damage
(Benería, 2003). These negative impacts, while often overlooked, have restricted the ability of non-
governmental organizations to improve educational, social, and economic opportunities for citizens
of developing countries. Although the UN, for example, has made considerable progress in reducing
disease, poverty, social injustice, hunger, and gender inequality in the world and has promoted
universal education, improved maternal and child health, increased HIV/AIDS prevention, fomented
environmental sustainability, and encouraged the development of global partnerships, its
improvements point to a discouraging context for the education of disadvantaged youth. For
example:

 About 805 million people were estimated to be chronically undernourished in 2012–14. (UN
Food and Agriculture Organization, http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/en/)

 The majority of the hungry live in developing countries, where over one in eight are
chronically undernourished. (UN Food and Agriculture Organization,
http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/en/)

 The top 1 percent of the world’s richest individuals earns as much as the poorest 57 percent.
(Food 4 Africa, n.d., para. 1)

http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/en/

Journal of International Social Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2014, 84-91.

86 | P a g e

Website: http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585

 Two-thirds of the world’s population lives on less than $2 a day. (Food 4 Africa, n.d., para. 1)

 More than 2.4 billion people do not have proper sanitation facilities. (Food 4 Africa, n.d.,
para. 1)

 Of the 6.9 billion people in the world today, at least 1.2 billion do not have access to safe
drinking water. (Food 4 Africa, n.d., para. 1)

 Two-thirds of the world’s 876 million illiterate persons are women. (Food 4 Africa, n.d., para.
1)

 Over twenty thousand children in the world die monthly from preventable causes. (United
Nations Children’s Fund, 2010)

Article 24 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) stands in stark contrast to these
statistics, as it guarantees access to the highest attainable standards of health, including
preventative health care services; provision of adequate and nutritious food; clean drinking water;
reduced infant and child mortality; and protection from environmental pollution. In light of these
guarantees, statistics such as those above highlight the basic violations of human rights in the lives
of disenfranchised youth. We believe that educational researchers and policymakers who aspire to
improve the academic performance and increase educational opportunity for disadvantaged youth
fail to comprehend the fundamental and decisive role of such violations.
Stiglitz (2003) noted that the promise of poverty reduction had shifted into an acceptance of “a
growing divide between the haves and the have-nots [that] has left increasing numbers in the Third
World in dire poverty” (p. 5). Since most of us expect education to provide students with the
necessary knowledge, skills, and dispositions to compete within highly competitive global market
systems, several urgent questions arise from Stiglitz’ observation. For example, how can young
people care about being participating citizens if the democratic processes in their country are
compromised by powerful elites? How can disadvantaged youth throughout the world care about
academic achievement when they live in environments that do not encourage learning? How can
adolescents care about literacy when they are hungry? How can we provide educational opportunity
for all when the majority of the world’s population lives in extreme poverty and despair?

The Larger Context

We assert that in this age of globalization the single most critical variable for achieving educational
equity is an understanding of the myriad of CMFs preventing its realization. A holistic examination of
global economic forces makes it clear that factors like social injustices and the unequal distribution
of resources represent gross violations of decency because they define the context within which
profound educational inequities exist. We believe that unless policymakers, citizens of developed
countries, and government leaders intentionally expose and repair such mitigating factors, the
potential of education to improve the human condition will remain severely limited. Thus if decision
makers are to cultivate educational equity, they must address the inextricable link between inequity
in education manifested in local, regional, and global injustice both of which are critical CMFs to
acknowledge and whose influence must be diminished if not eradicated.
A critical factor in this discourse is the reality that all educational decisions in all subject areas in
schools are context-driven, that is, mitigated by complex systems of influences from within and
beyond the social landscapes. Such influences lead to visible and invisible tensions between what
educators may seek to accomplish and the reality within which it must be accomplished. Yet it is
necessary to address such tensions if we are to find effective, equitable solutions that help to purge
poverty and social equity as a means to expanding educational equity. In fact, we view the process
of education in its current forms of actualization as an effort to globalize hegemonic practices

Journal of International Social Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2014, 84-91.

87 | P a g e

Website: http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585

precisely because efforts to equalize and make equitable educational opportunity in this global age
ignore the world’s socio-cultural-economic contexts.
The glaring lack of attention to context in educational research misleads educators and policy
makers resulting in policy that is void of the general inter/intra dependent nature of contexts. Not
only do CMFs interact across and within all systems, but also a CMF such as poverty can be a system
itself as well as be part of larger systems. We refer to contextual systems as holons, a term coined by
Koestler (1967) to refer to “any stable biological or social sub-whole which displays rule-governed
behavior and or Gestalt-constancy” (p. 341).

The Convention on the Rights of the Child

The concept of human rights is an integral part to the notion of a universal, morally-principled world
order representing the values embedded in a “combination of worldwide religious practices, cultural
traditions, philosophical constructions of universal, natural rights, and western philosophy” (Landorf,
2009, p. 48). A global declaration of human rights calls for all members of civil societies to share
particular standards of behavior, based on the belief that certain undeniable moral truths exist and
apply to all human beings everywhere. In today’s interdependent and rapidly changing world, the
concept of human rights has become common in the language of contemporary global political
dialogue, representing to many the moral foundation for regulating the political world order and
achieving social justice for all members of humankind. Thus, human rights extend from a moral
universalism that forms the basis for rules and norms of interaction among people in society. Just as
importantly, this moral universalism forms the ground upon which freedom can take hold in the
world (Landorf, 2009).
Unfortunately, despite a growing consciousness about the imperative of human rights throughout
the world, the rights of disenfranchised and underserved students are being violated. By accident of
birth, minority newborns routinely become the underprivileged children of the world, prevented
from reaching their potential by inequitable education systems. Such children could receive an
equitable education, of course, but only if CMFs such as those which are part of the power elite of
researchers, policymakers, businesspeople, and educators take courageous and principled action to
make contextual factors explicit and synchronize educational reform with broader reform efforts.
The problem of educational inequality based on race, class, sexism and ameliorative efforts in
isolation from their CMFs is not new, of course. An awareness of the need to extend particular care
to the rights of children dates back to the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child approved by
the League of Nations in 1924 (UN Documents, 1924). Later global agreements addressing the rights
of children include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the Declaration of the Rights
of the Child of 1959, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 (in particular in
Articles 23 and 24), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966
(in particular Article 10), all adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. The most recent is the
seminal human rights treaty outlining the civil, cultural, economic, social, and political rights of
minors (those under age eighteen) around the world, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CRC) designed by the United Nations with the intention of addressing the problems facing
disadvantaged youth. To date, this implicit acknowledgement of educational and other inequalities
suffered by the world’s children has been signed by all member states of the United Nations with the
exception of Somalia, the United States, and the new nation of South Sudan. Concerns about the
welfare and rights of youth also are addressed in other statutes and relevant instruments of
specialized agencies and international organizations seeking to secure the welfare of children and
the conditions in which they “can fully assume its responsibilities within the community” (UCR
Preamble 1989, p. 1).

Journal of International Social Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2014, 84-91.

88 | P a g e

Website: http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585

The 54 articles of the CRC direct signatory states “to develop and undertake all actions and policies”
(http://www.unicef.org/crc/ n.d.) that serves the best interests of the child. This stance is radically
different from the common law of many countries in the world, where children are considered to be
possessions and can be treated as chattel in family disputes. Article 2 (UNESCO, 1989) clearly
stipulates that signatory states should respect and ensure the rights of each child within their
jurisdiction:

…without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s…race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth
or other states…to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected
against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities,
expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.
(para. 2)

Moreover, the CRC states that children must be afforded special care in the “full and harmonious
development of their personality…in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding”
(UNESCO, 1989, para.1). Within this directive lies the essence of our call for educational justice as a
basic human right of all children. Articles 28, 29, 30, and 31 specify, among other things, the need for

primary education, compulsory, and available free to all…development of different forms of
secondary education including general and vocational education…available and accessible to
every child…financial assistance in case of need; higher education accessible to all on the
basis of capacity by every appropriate means… measures to encourage regular attendance
at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates. (UNESCO, 1989, para.8)

In particular, Article 29 concerns a child’s right to sound psychological and social development such
that educational efforts are directed to the development of the

child's personality, talents, and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential…a
respect for [their] human rights and fundamental freedoms… [for] their own cultural
identity, language and values; for the national values of the country in which the child is
living; the country from which he or she may originate; and for civilizations different from his
or her own (UNESCO, 1989, para. 9).

Article 30 speaks directly to the conditions of minority children, and addresses the critical concept of
inclusion, which has been the focus of heated discussion in educational and policy-making circles in
the U.S., particularly with regard to the eligibility of non-native English speakers to be placed in
mainstream classrooms, stating:

In those states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous
origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the
right in the community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own
culture, to profess and practice his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language
(UNESCO, 1989, para. 9).

Finally, Article 31 is aimed at ensuring that a child’s creativity and potentialities in the arts are
maximized to the fullest. It requests that states

respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and
shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic
activity (UNESCO, 1989, para. 9).

Thus, the CRC represents a powerful humanistic document by which to support the basic human
right to equal educational opportunity for youth around the globe. We strongly believe that the
fulfillment of this ideal has the potential to eradicate the discriminatory status of underprivileged
children in their societies and to protect them from economic, social, cultural and political
exploitation.

http://www.unicef.org/crc/

Journal of International Social Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2014, 84-91.

89 | P a g e

Website: http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585

The Role and Function of Education in Today’s World

What then should be the role of schooling and, by implication, the function of education in a
capitalist society (Bowles & Gintis, 2002)? If education means to socialize students to become
competent citizens and skilled workers in a highly competitive global economy, three questions
arise. First, is there a predetermined, universal set of cultural indicators that hegemonic forces use
as filters to limit the potential range of a student’s participation in a globalized world? Second, does
the function of education as determined by policymakers and educators throughout the world
include these same filters, and if so, are the filters enacted implicitly or explicitly in school settings?
Thirdly, are all educational opportunities equal and equitable? Regardless of how one chooses to
answer these questions, our argument throughout this discourse is that CMFs shape human
conditions, vary from one place to another, and must be made explicit in the attainment of global
literacy. Is it unreasonable to expect that power brokers and policymakers should explicitly address
the CMFs that impact educational opportunity at local, national, and worldwide levels? For those
hegemonic stakeholders interested in maintaining economic and political control, the answer may
be yes. Nevertheless, as history shows, power can be transitory and human rights can be upheld.

Carnoy and Levin (1985) observed: “On the whole, members of racial minorities and low-income
groups are less likely to do well in school, and they are also less likely to do well in the job market”
(p. 1). Although Carnoy and Levin are referring to the United States, we believe that a systematic
discrepancy between those who succeed and those who fail is a worldwide phenomenon because
gatekeepers, representing a CMF, control the equitable distribution of resources which include
formal educational experiences.

Thoughts to Consider

A cursory review of educational conditions around the world reveals that many countries have failed
to provide education to young people “without discrimination irrespective of race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability,
birth or other status” (UNESCO, 1989, para.2), violating Article 2 of the CRC. Nor have political and
educational leaders extended to disadvantaged children the special care necessary for their
development. Despite the challenges faced by children raised in complex, poor, struggling
households that lack access to educational opportunities, those in a position to do so have not seen
fit to provide “the maximum extent of available resources” (UNESCO, 1989, para. 2) such children
require.
Many disadvantaged children around the world have not seen their nations follow through, for
example, on the basic assurance in the CRC of the “production and dissemination of children’s
books” (UNESCO, 1989, para. 2). The execution of such a fundamental goal is a requirement if the
world’s youth are to meet national standards, satisfy their intellectual curiosity, maximize their
inherent creativity, and gain the skills needed to create a decent life. Because educational
researchers and policymakers have ignored the complexity of contexts when making explicit the
reasons for underachievement by minority populations, their work has failed to come close to
attaining educational justice for all children.
Further, we strongly believe, that education as a global phenomenon can never be successful as long
as CMFs such as Western-style inquiry learning stands as the reigning pedagogical tool of educators
around the world. In addition, global literacy for all can never be achieved as long as some
individuals can take full advantage of their cultural, economic, and social capital and others cannot.
In the United States today, for example, educational policymakers and educators increasingly
emphasize the inclusion of disadvantaged and underserved students in mathematics and science

Journal of International Social Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2014, 84-91.

90 | P a g e

Website: http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585

classes to the neglect of social science education (Pace, 2008). In fact, social science education has
played a secondary role in K-12 schooling since the stirrings of the accountability movement and
standardized testing in the 1990s (Hutton & Burstein, 2008). In our view, greater attention must be
paid to the CMFs that lead to some students being overwhelmingly represented in the sciences and
others not, and why many minorities are underrepresented in the social sciences. By raising the
questions necessary to make explicit how and why students are sifted into particular types of
classrooms, we can take a step in the direction of more equitable educational opportunity for all
children.

Concluding Remarks

We are convinced that from a theoretical perspective, we need to keep in mind that making explicit
the interconnectedness of education and influencing CMFs is critical. Yet, the picture that many
researchers paint and that policymakers use for decision-making lacks insight into the specific ways
that a CMF such as inequity, manifests itself and influences pedagogical acts in teaching and
learning. The inability or lack of willingness to make explicit the multiple cultural, economic, and
political mitigating factors embedded in educational data, teaching methods, or any policy
formulated is the greatest obstacle to a deep understanding of how inequity manifests itself in
societies and classrooms around the world in this age of globalization. Unless the criticality of
context and socio-historical legacies are an integral part of educational discourse, any effort to
understand the impact of past, present and future education and development efforts are merely
hollow.
In summary, we strongly believe that the failure of countries to provide their minority youth with
equal access to education is a gross violation of their basic human rights. The failure of educators
and policymakers to make contextual issues explicit punishes disadvantaged children who, by
accident of birth, do not possess the cultural capital of their more privileged peers. Without correct
habitus, these disenfranchised children will remain severely disadvantaged as they seek to find their
place in the global age.

References

Benería, L. (2003). Gender, development and globalization: economics as if all people mattered. New
York: Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (Nice, R. trans.), Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic.

Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (2002). Schooling in capitalist America revisited. Sociology of
Education, 75(1), 1-18.
Carnoy, M. & Levin, H.M. (1985). Schooling and work in the democratic state. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2014). The State of Food Insecurity
in the World 2014. http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/en/
Food 4 Africa. n.d. “Role of Food 4 Africa.” Retrieved June 5, 2012 from
(http://food4africa.org/who-we-are/role-of-food-4-africa/).
Gallard M., A.J., Pitts, W., Flores Bustos, B., Claeys, L., Baynes, G., Brkich, K., Stevenson, A., &

http://food4africa.org/who-we-are/role-of-food-4-africa/

Journal of International Social Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2014, 84-91.

91 | P a g e

Website: http://www.iajiss.org ISSN: 2327-3585

Wassell, B. (2013, November) Latina resiliency: in pursuit of STEM careers. Paper presented
at the meeting of the World Education Research Association (WERA), Guanajuato, Mexico.

Hutton, L., A. & Bernstein, J. H. (2008). The teaching of history-social science: Left behind or behind
closed doors? Social Studies Research and Practice, 3(1): 96-108.

Koestler, A. (1967). The ghost in the machine. NY: Macmillan.
Landorf, H. (2009). Toward a philosophy of global education. In T.F. Kirkwood-Tucker (Ed.),

Visions in global education: The globalization of curriculum and pedagogy in teacher
education programs and schools (chapter 3, pg. 47-67). NY: Peter Lang.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107-110. Retrieved May 10, 2012 from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf

Pace, J.L. (2008). Inequalities in history-social science teaching under high stakes
accountability: Interviews with fifth-grade teachers in California. Social Studies
Research and Practice, 3(1), 24-40.

Stiglitz, J.E. (2003). Globalization and its discontents. NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved May 10, 2012 from
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
United Nations. (1966a). International covenant on civil and political rights. General Assembly

Resolution 2200A (XXI). Retrieved June 1, 2012 from
http://www.un-documents.net/a21r2200.htm

United Nations. (1966b). International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights.
General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI). Retrieved June 1, 2012 from
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/acescr.htm

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2010). State of the world’s children special
edition. Retrieved June 1, 2012 from http://www.unicef.org/rightsite/sowc/pdfs/SOWC_

Spec% 20Ed_CRC_Main%20Report_EN_090409.pdf
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (1989).

Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved June 10, 2012
http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/CHILD_E.PDF

UN Documents. (1924). Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Retrieved June
15, 2012 from http://www.un-documents.net/gdrc1924.htm

World Data Sheet. (2010). Retrieved June 10, 2012 from www.populationeducation.org

i
The terms underprivileged, disadvantaged, disenfranchised, and minority are used

interchangeably in the text.

ii
The terms students, children, adolescents, and youth are used interchangeably in text.

iii
In 2000, the United Nations adopted two additional protocols for the protection of

children. The First Optional Protocol restricts the involvement of children in military

conflicts; the Second Optional Protocol prohibits the sale of children, child

prostitution, and child pornography. Both protocols have been ratified by 140 of 193 UN

member nations.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
http://www.un-documents.net/a21r2200.htm
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/acescr.htm
http://www.unicef.org/rightsite/sowc/pdfs/SOWC_%20%20%0dSpec%25%2020Ed_CRC_Main%20Report_EN_090409.pdf
http://www.unicef.org/rightsite/sowc/pdfs/SOWC_%20%20%0dSpec%25%2020Ed_CRC_Main%20Report_EN_090409.pdf
http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/CHILD_E.PDF
http://www.un-documents.net/gdrc1924.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optional_Protocol_on_the_Involvement_of_Children_in_Armed_Conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optional_Protocol_to_the_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child_on_the_Sale_of_Children,_Child_Prostitution_and_Child_Pornography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography