State, [would] result in comparable lessening of desired local autonomy.’ 12 Nevertheless, challenges of the allocation of public funds to private schools in other countries have introduced human rights correctives in resource allocation. Such cases have often been a response to the recent trends of privatization and commoditization of education, especially to school vouchers. School vouchers have altered the established practice of the states to finance a network of public schools so that all children have access, and the consequent allocation of children to a particular school by some objective criteria, such as distance. School vouchers introduced a different view of the obligations of the state – rather than having to ensure that public schools are available for all children and that all schools comply with the requirements of quality and safety, the introduction of school vouchers has enabled parents to shop around with the voucher in hand as payment. Through such voucher schemes, governments have enabled parents to choose a school for their children, with the state’s contribution to the child’s education embodied in the voucher, usually amounting to the enrolment and/or tuition fee. The rationale has been that individual schools should be rewarded for attracting learners, while those unable to do so should be deprived of funding. At a higher level of abstraction, the rationale is to enhance competitiveness and/or broaden parental freedom of choice. An additional, albeit implicit reason, has been a wish to subject public schools to competition, seeing them as having monopolized education. This approach has generated a great deal 12 US Supreme Court – San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), 21 March 1973. of controversy by challenging the premise accepted in many countries, namely that the government is obliged either to provide all-encompassing public education (at least within the compulsory school age) or to subsidize a variety of non-public schools, in both cases ensuring that all schools comply with the basic quality standards. Through voucher schemes, governments enable individual learners to make payments to the school of their choice. The distinction between public and private, state and non-state, fee-charging and free schools – and the diversity which they embody – is likely to be eroded if the introduction of vouchers gains ground. Only schools able to attract learners and/or funding will be left. The rationale behind vouchers sees governments as providing some funding to learners to the detriment of the full range of governmental human rights obligations, namely to ensure that schooling is available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable. On-going debates about school vouchers started within the realm of economics, focusing on consumer choice and competitiveness while rejecting the notion of education as a public good.13 Court cases have brought the issue into the realm of the rule of law. The voucher scheme introduced in 1993 in Puerto Rico was declared unconstitutional in the part which accorded to selected pupils a financial grant of $1,500 for 13 Education constitutes a public good because its worth increases when it is shared and it cannot be prevented from spreading – people learn regardless of whether they are meant to or not, children and adults alike. Different from education, schooling cannot easily be defined as a public good because individuals can be prevented from access to school. Deprivation of schooling cannot be equalized with a lack of education – people learn at home, on the street, in the community, in prison or refugee camp. Right to Education Primers No. 3 21