the latter 2 As, Acceptability and Adaptability, are extremely useful as entry points. My second point, slightly more contentious: Is an encouragement to further highlight the existing international legal frameworks around the right to education. These Recommendations must clearly list the legal and normative tools we have, must clearly say that these are the tools we need and that we do not need any more, but that we must be better at interpreting them and at using them and their mechanisms. Apart from the laws and constitutions at the national level and the ILO and UNESCO conventions for normative inspiration, these existing legal frameworks that I primarily refer to are those that has: - a proven record of working - a clear, transparent, useful and non-politicised mechanism of complaint and examination in public, and - a large base of ratification, in the case of the international framework. We all know who these are! Principally the two Covenants, plus CEDAW, CERD, CRC and 3 existing regional frameworks, all 3 of which has courts (noting that the remaining regions has none: the Arab HR Charter gives no serious garuantees and the Asia-Pacific region has no mechanism at all – an issues which we as civil society must continue to pressure the involved governments about). How do we get better at using them? By testing them in the national, regional and international courts, thus challenging governments. We, as the UN, as NHRI and as civil society must play that role. And use the results, in campaigning around litigation, in naming and shaming, for judicial review and for coming together around shadow reporting to the above committee procedures and to the new Universal Periodic Review(UPR) process. I say this for two reasons: - First: because the right to education (as perhaps opposed to other ESC right) is fairly easily justiciable in these courts, using these