authorities should ensure that all the national minorities, particularly those that are numerically smaller or do not enjoy the support of a kin-state, benefit equitably from the special government programmes for national minorities”.36 If used prudently, kin-state support can be an asset both for the minority concerned, other minority groups as well as for the majority population. When discussing kin-state support in the field of textbooks and other teaching materials supplied by kin-states, it needs to be taken into account that such materials may in some cases not reflect adequately and correctly the experiences and aspirations of minorities concerned since they are produced in and by the kinstate by persons who do not live in the country of the minority at issue. Equal opportunities for access to education a) Legal and institutional framework of education Rights to, and in education, need to be institutionalized and safeguarded in clear and coherent legal acts. State Parties must also dedicate the financial resources necessary for the implementation of adopted legislation at national, regional and local level. This is not always the case especially as education budgets in many countries in Europe have faced cuts in recent years. Sometimes there are contradictions between educational legal acts on minority education and other legal acts devoted to (such as state language laws). Minority languages are in some cases officially treated as “foreign languages” placed in the same position as foreign languages with no historical or cultural link to the country concerned. The Advisory Committee has emphasized that minority languages should be recognised and treated as part of the linguistic and cultural wealth of a State.37 In other cases the complexity of laws and decrees in this field is such that those concerned (heads of schools, responsible authorities, teachers, parents and pupils) are unaware of the actual rules, rights and duties, e.g. with regard to threshold requirements for the retention or abolition of a class, or a school. Legal certainty and clarity are preconditions for coherent implementation of the provisions of the Framework Convention, especially since the Framework Convention requires the concretization and contextualization at national, regional and local levels. The issue of complexity of the legal framework is linked to the current trend for decentralization of education, with responsibility delegated to local authorities and further to heads of schools. In order to be able to participate meaningfully in decisions affecting them, teachers, parents and pupils should be aware of who decides on different matters and on the basis of which legal provisions. This also includes decisions on funding of minority education. Another aspect related to the legal framework, is that of the means of supervision and subsequently of enforcement of legal provisions concerning education. Since many State Parties have provisions on the right to education in their constitutions as well as in a number of other pieces of legislation, it is remarkable that there is hardly any information in State Reports on the judicial or other means to enforce such provisions, at national as well as at local level, nor about court practice in the field of education. One of the exceptions is the 36 Advisory Committee Opinion on Armenia ACFC/INF/OP/I(2003)001, paragraph 63; Advisory Committee Opinion on Moldova ACFC/INF/OP/I(2003)002, paragraph 116. See also concerns raised under Article 18 in the Advisory Committee Opinion on Poland ACFC/INF/OP/I(2004)005. 37 Advisory Committee Opinion on Poland ACFC/INF/OP/I(2004)005, paragraphs 68-69. 20