Methodology

1. With this first indicator we were trying to find out what information is passed on to parents and which of this it is obligatory to pass on. We established 5 sub-indicators listing the information that to us seem indispensable if parents are to understand the school system, philosophy and competences of the school as well as their rights and duties, and those of their child.

This indicator can vary from 0 to a maximum of 75 points. Each sub-indicator can be rated as 0 if no information on this topic is provided; as 5 if the information is provided but it is not obligatory to do so, and as 15 if the information provided must be done so obligatorily.

2.This indicator will allow us to find out if the information is adapted, and therefore able to reach the most people possible, while also being understood by those who receive it. This would reflect a strong political desire to take into account migrant or minority groups, with a declared will for integration (at least at a scholastic level) of the rights and duties of everybody.

If the maximum points total is obtained for both these indicators, the right to information can reach a maximum value of 100 points. Indicator 1: maximum 75 points / Indicator 2: maximum 25 points

1. With regards to the indicators for the right to choose, we wanted to find out if the educational programmes offered were diverse, and if they were supported by financial measures.

In order for parents to actually have the right to choose the education they want for their children, there must be a well-diversified set of programmes so that there is a broad range on offer. We have assigned a maximum of 50 points for this indicator where 50 indicates a genuinely diversified range and 0 indicates no diversity. We also allowed the possibility of an intermediate situation, assigned 25 points, where diversity is not significant (e.g. there is only a choice between state schools and religious schools).

2. The second indicator concerns a very sensitive political issue as it regards subsidies for private schools. Although almost all States award subsidies to such schools, the issue is controversial. We felt that if choice is offered to parents through diversified curricula, it should not be limited by financial reasons. We have not used the word private, though it is common, in order to avoid ideological connotations, but have adopted the terminology of the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural rights.

We assigned 50 points where attending schools “other than those established by public authorities” does not result in any additional cost to parents, 25 points where costs are partly covered by the State and partly by the family, 10 points where subsidies are unevenly or infrequently implemented, and 0 points where all costs are borne by the family.

These two indicators combined give the right to choose a maximum value of 100 points. Indicator 1: maximum 50 points / Indicator 2: maximum 50 points

This indicator should reveal firstly if this right exists or not, and then which domains it covers. We have nevertheless chosen not to specify the level of appeal in question (within the school, education or legal systems). We seek simply to determine if an appeal mechanism exists that allows parents to formally mark their opposition to a decision.

1. With regard to the right of appeal, we felt it should be exercised in the five areas listed above, which are also those most often subject to litigation or dispute. As the two first points are sufficiently explicit, we will proceed directly to those that follow. As far as assessment is concerned, it seems important to us - in particular when decisions are made that entail serious consequences – to be able to appeal. One example is student guidance, due to its importance in the child's future. Regarding the right of participation, we consider it essential to be able to appeal when this right is not respected. Finally, with regard to the last item, concerning the decisions of participatory bodies, it seems equally important to us to be able to appeal if these bodies do not reflect the common will of the parents, but only special interests for example.

2. As far as the effectiveness of appeal mechanisms is concerned, it seemed vital to know, not only if appeal mechanisms existed, but also if it were in fact possible to use them without being put at a disadvantage by a response that never arrives or arrives too late. That is why initially, we wanted to know whether the closest contact to which the parents can appeal, imposes a deadline. Indeed, if for example a parent appealing regarding admission of their child received no response until the middle of the year, the appeal mechanism, although it exists, would be considered ineffective. It would be the same were a parent to appeal and be rejected without receiving any explanation

Through this indicator, we wanted to go even further: we were not satisfied with just knowing whether appeal mechanisms exist and in which area; we also wanted to highlight their effectiveness.

For this indicator we assigned 20 points if the closest contact must respect a deadline that does not undermine the complainant and 0 points if there is no mention of a deadline or one that harms the student. We also assigned 20 supplementary points if the responses supplied by the appeal mechanisms are justified, and 0 points if they are not.

With these two indicators the right of appeal can attain a maximum weighting of 100 points. Indicator 1: maximum 60 points Indicator 2: maximum 40 points

1. With the first indicator we wanted to determine the level of parental participation as well as which competences are assigned to them. We consider it desirable for parents to make decisions at all levels – from the conception of educational policies to assessment of the system – in order to make these participatory bodies genuinely effective. However, there are some countries such as Switzerland and Belgium for example, that only possess two levels. As their different regions (cantons or communities) are entirely sovereign in the matter of compulsory education, there is no formal structure for parental participation at a national level.

For the attribution of points we proceeded as follows: Each level (school/regional/central) could obtain a maximum of 20 points when complete autonomy is granted to the participatory body without external intervention; 10 points were assigned when the participatory body may decide, but with limited autonomy; 5 points when the body is consulted when the authorities make decisions, and no points when there is no participatory body . For those countries with only two levels for political reasons as stated above, we assigned 30 points when the autonomy of the participatory body is complete, 15 points when the body can make decisions but with limited autonomy, 5 points when it is only consulted and no points when there is no body.

This indicator is of great importance as it enables us firstly to determine the level of parental participation, and secondly to find out to what extent parents are valued and accepted through greater or lesser decision-making powers. Hence this indicator holds 60% of the weighting for the right of participation, as it can reach a maximum of 60 points if participatory bodies exist at all levels and if these benefit from complete autonomy in the decisions they make.

2. With regards to the representation of parents in participatory bodies at three levels, it seemed important to us to measure their weight. It is clear that a minority representation of parents in participatory bodies will not have the same consequences as a majority representation. That is why no points were assigned if representation in participatory bodies is in the minority or does not exist at all. Five points were assigned if representation is equal, and 10 if it is in the majority. This applies to all three levels, the school, the region and the national or central. Therefore we obtained a maximum value of 30 points for countries with three levels, and 20 points for those with two levels. The division into two or three depending on the country, allowed us to obtain a number of points of which the maximum was 10.

3. With the third indicator, we wanted to emphasise the interest of the State in parental opinion. After some years, parental participation has gained some ground. Everyone recognizes that it is not only beneficial to the learning process of the child, but also to the management of the school. What concerns us here is knowing whether the State consults the opinion of all parents regularly or not at all.

Therefore we assigned no points if parental opinion is not collected, 10 points if it is collected but only every five years or more, and 15 points when it is done at a regular interval of less than five years.

4. The final indicator on the existence of a training programme for parents should be indicative of the State’s commitment to their involvement. Indeed we think that authorities should offer training courses for parents. This would allow them to better understand the education system, better follow and target the needs of their children, as well as to participate in decisions made within the school, region or even at a national level.

We assigned 15 points if such arrangements are made by the State on a regular basis and financed by it, 10 points if training is provided but not by the State or not systemised and no points if no training exists.

With these 4 indicators, the maximum total that can be obtained for the right of participation is 100 points. Indicator 1: maximum 60 points Indicator 2: maximum 10 points Indicator 3: maximum 15 points Indicator 4: maximum 15 points

1.As before, this indicator allows us to determine what information is passed on to parents. It can vary from 0 to 75 points maximum. Each sub-indicator was marked 0 if no information about it is provided and 15 if information is transmitted to parents.

2.The second indicator raises the adaptation of information and therefore its potential to reach the maximum number of people possible, whilst still being understood by those who receive it.

If however the information is translated into several languages or mechanisms for risk families are in place, we assigned 10 points. If these two conditions (information translated into several languages + mechanisms for risk families) are met, we granted 25 points.

If the maximum points total is obtained for both these indicators, the right to information can reach a maximum value of 100 points. Indicator 1: maximum 75 points Indicator 2: maximum 25 points.

1.As with the indicators developed for the right to choose in the national reports, we wanted to find out if diverse educational programmes were offered and if they were financially supported.

For this indicator we assigned a maximum value of 50 points for a genuinely diversified offer and 0 points if there is no diversity. We have also allowed the possibility of an intermediate situation, assigned 25 points, where diversity is not significant (e.g. there is only a choice between state schools and religious schools)

2.  For the second indicator regarding subsidies for schools “other than those established by the public authorities”, we assigned 50 points when attending such schools does not entail any extra cost for parents, 25 points when fees are in part covered by the State and in part by the families, 10 points if subsidies are irregular or too few, and 0 points when fees are entirely borne by the families.

These two indicators combined give the right to choose a maximum value of 100 points. Indicator 1: maximum 50 points Indicator 2: maximum 50 points

1.With this indicator we wanted to determine if an appeal mechanism exists that allows parents to formally express their opposition to a decision.

We have not defined an intermediate situation for this right of appeal. If mechanisms for parents to appeal against a decision exist, we assigned 100 points; if there is no opportunity for appeal, no points were awarded.

The right of appeal has a maximum weighting of 100 points. Indicator 1: maximum 100 points

1.With the first indicator for the right of participation, we wanted to find out if parental participatory bodies exist and at what level: school, region and national/central. For countries with only two levels, due to their constitutional or political structure, an adjustment was made at the time of weighting.

For the attribution of points we proceeded as follows: where participatory bodies exist, in countries with three levels, 16.6 points were assigned per level. In countries with two levels, 25 points were assigned per level. And in the absence of any body, no points were assigned. For countries with three levels then, this indicator obtained 0 points if there are no participatory bodies, 16.6 if they exist at one level, 33.2 if they exist at two levels, and 50 if each level has a participatory body. For countries with two levels, this indicator obtained 0 points if there are no participatory bodies, 25 if they exist at one level, and 50 if each level has its own.

This indicator is of great importance to our research. Participation through formal bodies gives parents the opportunity to express their views on a subject together. Consequently it seems of interest to know at which level (school, regional/intermediate or national/central), this participation takes place, as the problems are not the same. Furthermore, in the weighting of this indicator, we have not addressed the powers granted to the bodies.

2. Finally, the indicator on the existence of a training programme for parents should be indicative of the State’s commitment to parental participation. Indeed as we have already mentioned, it seems to us that the authorities must implement training programmes for parents.

We therefore decided to award 50 points when such arrangements are financed and put in place by the State on a regular basis, and no points if this is not the case.

These two indicators combined give the right of participation a maximum value of 100 points. Indicator 1: maximum 50 points Indicator 2: maximum 50 points