Speech by Michael O’Flaherty, at the Conference on Human Rights and Rule of Law in Europe in Università Statale di Milano.

Rector,

Members of the University,

Friends,

Thank you very much for inviting me to deliver this lecture. I am delighted to be here. I would like to reflect on the role of human rights in upholding our rule of law states. I am deeply aware I do so on 8 September the anniversary date of so relevant an event as the announcement of the Armistice of Cassibile. This marked a turning point for Italian history, eventually leading to the adoption of a Constitution granting high attention to the rights and dignity of individuals.

Those were indeed the years when the immediate modern human rights story began, with the Charter of the United Nations, the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the negotiation of numerous human rights treaties and a suite of other initiatives in support of democracy and rule of law. Here in Europe the Council of Europe has, for 75 years, played its essential role in protecting, defending and promoting those three core and interlocking concepts. It, together with the OSCE and the European Union have elaborated their own standards and developed numerous institutions in support and in furtherance of human thriving.

The totality of the efforts of the UN and the regional organisations is to clarify an understanding and affirm the validity of the interplay of democracy, rule of law and human rights. We lack an English language noun to capture this interplay – to describe a state that integrates the three elements in an interdependent and indivisible form – and so I will generally use the term ‘stato di diritto’ by way of shorthand.

States have invested in oversight mechanisms intended to promote respect for key elements of the stato di diritto. The investment is longstanding when it comes to human rights, including in the activities of the European Court of Human Rights, of other regional human rights courts, and of numerous other human rights promotion and protection mechanisms. The international developments are accompanied by national initiatives, including the establishment of national human rights institutions as well as such other bodies as equality commissions.

Attention to oversight of rule of law more generally is more recent. For instance, the Council of Europe Venice Commission has elaborated a check list to assess compliance with rule of law. The EU, in turn, has instigated a rule of law compliance assessment system for its own member states.

The intergovernmental and state commitment in these areas, importantly, is reflective of strongly held attitudes in our societies. The results of a 2023 global survey by the Open Society Foundations were revelatory. It surveyed 36,000 people across 30 countries, finding that 86% of people say that they wish to live in a democracy and that 72% believe that human rights are a force for good. Indeed, 71% say that “human rights reflect values that I believe in”. These finding echo the results of surveys conducted across the EU by its Fundamental Rights Agency. And these data provide a context to appreciate the scale and the importance of the communities in civil society who defend and champion human rights, rule of law and democracy.

From this brief review, we can conclude that the establishment and consolidation of the stato di diritto is an astonishing achievement; all the more so for having emerged from the chaos and the horrors of war. What is more, it has unique qualities. Above all, it is the only model for society that can be said to have the universal agreement of the world’s states – as evidenced, at least nominally, in the outcome declarations of repeated global and regional summits, such as that of the 2023 Council of Europe Summit of Heads of State and Government.

But of course you may point out that these impressive concepts and institutions remain largely theoretical, as they do not reflect the lived experience of millions of people - and you would be right.”

We still have a very long way to go to realise the dream of a world where everyone is equal in dignity and rights. The vision of the UN Charter is in part unrealised. States ebb and flow in their commitment to and respect for rule of law. Progress is rarely linear, achievements fall apart or are undermined. Right now, the Russian aggression against Ukraine testifies to what happens when the values are insufficiently embedded – how much damage can be done by an aggressor bent on conquest and destruction. And we are confronted daily by the horrors of what is happening in Palestine, and in Gaza in particular.

What is more, and focussing just on Europe, in recent years and in too many places we have seen an insidious withdrawal from central tenets of the rule of law. We see it in the agendas and actions of extreme political groups.  They in turn, as they acquire places in parliaments and governments, seek to undermine much of what has been achieved. They attack institutions, fill them with their own people or starve them of resources. Their attention typically turns to those at the edges of our societies whom they problematise, render as “other”, identify as the cause for all the malaise of our societies.

Right now the primary target for this othering is migrants. Other groups under extreme pressure include the Roma community and LGBTI persons – especially trans men and women. Civil society defending such groups are exposed to particular challenges. Efforts are made to block a free media and to consolidate media ownership in the hands of one’s supporters, or indeed of one’s bankrollers.

The playbook of those who attack our institutions grows ever more diverse, today also embracing school curriculum reform and the replacement of the leaders of cultural institutions. Everything is accompanied by disinformation that is actively promoted on social media platforms that are failing adequately to police their own spaces. Evidence suggests that across these phenomena, and at least as regards Europe, one state, Russia, plays a particularly pernicious role.

An especially disturbing development, notably observable in the past year, has been the embrace by some otherwise reasonable politicians of ideas that are antithetical to the stato di diritto – presumably for electoral purposes. So far we have seen this most obviously in the context of migration management, where, increasingly, parts of the political centre joins with the extremes to denigrate asylum seekers, blame them for our societies’ ills and advocates such breaches of international law as summary returns across borders and violation of the principle of non-refoulement. Even the push towards externalisation of asylum, returns and migration policy - which I have documented in a report published just last week - can sometimes be seen as an attempt to move actions to grey areas, where it is easier to get around the rule of law.

I describe this new willingness of the political middle ground to compromise on principle as ‘especially disturbing’ because it is to it that we look for firm commitment to and leadership for the rule of law. If the middle ground, even in part, withdraws its commitment then, as WB Yeats put it in his poem, “The Second Coming”, ‘Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold’.

And all of this now plays out against the background of the actions of the US Trump administration, which, for instance, through withdrawal of USAID funding is already negatively impacting the operation of so many European civil society organisations. US-sourced rhetoric also seems to embolden those who denigrate the trans and other minority communities.

Dear friends,

We need to wake up to the acute dangers for our societies. The peril has become crystallized. A light has been shone on the prospect of losing the formula for peace and well-being that, for all its limits and under-delivery, has served us so very well. That is not something we should even countenance tolerating. We have to, in the words of the late French writer, Stephan Hessel, wake up and, as he put it, ‘indignez vous’! [“Indignatevi!”]

But what should we do in our outrage? In the first place, the saving of the stato di diritto requires that our efforts be evidence-based. This in turn requires us to seek out and challenge the disinformation and myths that infect the discourse. We need to call out the nonsense, dispel the myths.

I already addressed the myth that our people are not interested in human rights or rights-respectful society.

Another set of myths concerns the primary targets of populist hate –migrants.

A further cluster of myths concerns the role of regulation, including laws intended to make our societies safer. The myth is that such oversight impedes innovation, undermines global competitiveness and strikes at free speech, and it is being invoked with increasing stridency. But it does not stand scrutiny. Take, for example, the oversight of AI. It is increasingly clear that this is not the source of Europe’s poor track record of innovation. That instead results primarily from such problems as inadequately developed capital markets, onerous bankruptcy regulations and, more generally, a distaste for risk.

Regarding regulation of social media, I am very concerned by calls for a retreat, for instance for a weakening of the EU Digital Services Act. Instruments such as the DSA do not undermine free speech – instead they defend it as it is understood in international law – a fundamental right that is subject to carefully constrained limits in the service of the public good. Also, I deplore the abandonment of content moderation on the part of some digital platforms, the effects of which are already visible in the proliferation of criminal-level hate speech and malicious targeted disinformation. And recall how an absolute free speech hits hardest for minority groups and women.

One last myth that I would like to mention suggests that our populations are crying out for a shift to less tolerant and more closed societies, for a retreat from a vision of society that respects diversity and inclusion - from a vision of a rights-respectful society. This myth is very impactful - I think it is what lures some politicians to extremist views and tempts otherwise reasonable people to embrace the demands of populists. The myth does not stand up to scrutiny. Recent research suggests that populism is a top-down phenomenon, driven by political actors and fed by waves of lies. What is more, as surveys demonstrate, the levels of hate online are in no way a reliable guide to the views and values of our societies.

Next we must identify those actors that need to rally in defence of the rule of law.

The state is the key actor and I will return to it in a moment.

Let me first observe that the role of National Human Rights Institutions and of such other entities as Equality bodies and ombudsmen is no less obvious. I acknowledge their work with respect and appreciation. I continue to urge states that have yet to establish such bodies to do so without delay. I hope Italy soon will establish a National Human Rights institution –its government has committed to it in numerous occasions – particularly as it is one of very few countries in Europe not to have one. This is the topic of a conference ongoing here in Milan, that I will address tomorrow.

The part played by civil society is equally essential and, as I have said, it is delivered with great courage and often at the expense of personal safety. I acknowledge with dear appreciation the work of Italian civil society (which I first got to know many years ago when I encountered the Sant’Egidio community in Rome and later working with the homeless in Sierra Leone – and more recently observing from afar the work of rescue NGOs saving lives in the Mediterranean). These people so often are Human Rights Defenders.

The pressure under which civil society functions is unacceptable. It is deplorable that, in so many places, so many activists confront harassment, violence, detention, exile and repression through regulation and direct intimidation. Standing up for human rights defenders has to be a core task of national and international human rights institutions. I see it as one of my highest priorities.

Turning to the state, all of its institutions are engaged and on multiple fronts.

Concerning the executive arm let me concentrate on just one area. I look to the executive to do a much better job of honouring the indivisibility of human rights, according co-equal status to civil, political, social, cultural and economic rights. It is only if this is achieved that our populations will appreciate that the rule of law is about and for them.

Here I recall the legitimate disaffection within our communities. Progress has left many behind. There are worrying levels of inequality in Europe. Until that is addressed, we both fail our peoples and offer opportunities to those who would undermine our democracies. Obviously, and drawing on our shared experience, I realise that my ask is an enormous one. But we should see it as a long-term objective. What is more, there are concrete things that we can do right now towards its deliverance.

For instance, we can be more consistent in demonstrating our own understanding of the unrealised vision of indivisible rights. 

One additional step that could radically impact attitudes to rights would be that we could make reference to human rights in the context of all the socio-economic improvements that we seek to achieve. Express the delivery of health care as an issue of human rights; jobs strategies as about the rights to employment; and similarly regarding education, social welfare and otherwise.

Before turning to other institutions allow me one further observation. An essential element of the rule of law is the full participation of our people in the reflection processes that impact their well-being. In other words, our states can get much better at listening to their people. Across Europe people complain that consultations on important policy areas are missing or inadequate or tokenistic. The issue of meaningful engagement with policy makers has been flagged for years by civil society. It is especially acute regarding the possibilities of engagement by marginalised groups – think, for instance, of the degree of exclusion of members of the Roma communities.

Addressing the participation and consultation gaps is a basic issue of rule of law. It will also yield better outcomes and, in the context of my words today, will support the deepening of trust on the part of citizens.

The need to actively listen is particularly acute regarding young people. They correctly complain about the paucity of structured spaces for them to dialogue with decision makers. And in terms of investing in this area, I recall how surveys and other empirical research show that the most disaffected group across our societies is that of young men. This is one more reason for me to be here, in the place where so many young people study – and hopefully for me to have an opportunity not only to speak but also to listen to you.

Very closely related to the right of people to be consulted is the importance of respecting the right of peaceful protest. Sometimes the security pendulum swings too far towards the limiting of protest.  Just look at the excessive limits we have seen in recent times in some countries in the context of pro-Palestine and climate crisis related protests. This area has been the topic of correspondence by me with your Senate just a few month ago.

Let me briefly mention two other institutions of the state: parliaments and courts.

This potential in standing up for the rule of law is underdeveloped. It is still the case that many European parliaments fail to undertake human rights scrutiny of draft legislation and some of them lack a related parliamentary committee. And I suggest that all parliaments on this continent could benefit from enhanced training on human rights and rule of law for parliamentarians and their staff.

Turning to the courts, I acknowledge the principled manner in which so many of them play their essential role. In this regard allow me express the deepest appreciation for the work of the Italian judiciary in standing up for human rights.

But courts too need investment and attention if they are to function everywhere as the strong independent institutions we require. Courts also, should not be exposed to unnecessary risk by policymakers who rather than tackle controversial issues instead trust that the courts will eventually resolve the matters. This is a phenomenon one can occasionally see behind the migration-related cases that arrive at the Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU.

One last word on rule of law-related institutions in general. In troubled times as now they all need to be protected and rendered resilient. In the course of my work I see them eroded and undermined. I am greatly concerned right now for the wellbeing of essential international organisations. I think, especially, of the International Criminal Court which is coming under such attack and whose work is undermined when there is a failure of support from its Member States.

My friends,

Finally, and I have left it to last because I believe it needs high and particular attention: today where are we to find our champions of rule of law? We need champions who are persistent and consistent.  They need courage and to be willing to challenge convention. They have to be able to accept and withstand unpopularity, even derision. 

For sure we need visionary leaders. People like Mandela, Havel or that most under-appreciated of US Presidents, Carter.

But such leadership is exceptional and rare and we cannot simply rue its rarity or wait for it to emerge.

Instead, for my hope, I look across the breadth of the political ground that I spoke of earlier. It is full of decent, honourable, hard-working and well-motivated people.  I meet them constantly, whether in national or local government – including here in Italy - or in such places as the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

These people can be engaged and persuaded. We need them to be alert to the gravity of the moment and engage it in law, policy and discourse. We need their attention nationally and abroad.

Friends,

In this lecture I can no more than engage the tip of the iceberg in terms of the risks to and means to uphold the rule of law. There are so many other sectors and contexts to examine and engage. I have said next to nothing about the role of local and regional government. I have managed an entire speech in 2025 with only the slightest reference to the AI revolution and climate change. Indeed, I have largely overlooked the business sector.

But if I have at least shone some light and conveyed the urgency then my purpose is served. To apply the title of a book that I remember from my childhood of the Norwegian adventurer Thor Heyerdahl, “time is short and the water rises”.

As we all engage the challenge I know that my own organisation, the Council of Europe, will accompany us, provide what support it can. After all it is the organisation’s raison d’etre – its only purpose - to uphold human rights, democracy and rule of law.  I too will employ the breadth of my mandate to support member states and their societies.

I am confident that efforts will not be futile – that – ultimately – we will achieve much and that the rule of law will prevail, at least in Europe. A quote often attributed to Nelson Mandela says “It always seems impossible until it's done”. I do not know whether this was actually said by Nelson Mandela, but I do know it’s true. On 8 September 1943, and the following months and years, people made the impossible possible, defeating the Nazi rule to create a stronger and fairer society. Now it is up to us to defend it.

Thank you.

News and events of the Ombudsman’s Office in August 2025 (information in links mostly available in Latvian).

People entitled to fare reductions on regional buses currently face unequal treatment

People eligible for fare reductions cannot be entirely certain that they will be able to obtain a ticket on a regional commercial bus and, consequently, to travel to the planned destination. The investigation has shown that such passengers, including people with disabilities, have been disembarked from a regional commercial bus for the benefit of another passenger who pays the full fare.

Ombudsman replies: May educational institution fail to provide information to parents if in doubt?

If staff of the educational institution (school, pre-school) have any doubts in cases of parent relationship matters (divorce, etc.), may the school limit providing information to the parent, for example, limit access to student’s online evaluation system. No, in case of any uncertainty, schools should act responsibly and find out if there is legal basis for not providing or limiting information to parents or relatives. Thus, ignoring a parent’s request is not permissible.

Ombudsman’s Office insists on a complex review of the immovable property encumbrance and compensation system and reverts to the government

The Ombudsman’s Office has repeatedly called on the government to undertake a comprehensive review of the immovable property encumbrance and indemnification framework, pointing to the shortcomings of the existing system and the need for a complex approach in this area. The deadline for reporting on the progress is 1^st October.

The law does not currently provide for the responsibility of the owner for disturbing noises and odours caused by pets

For barking, howling and odours caused by a domestic (pet) animal, which are not related to non-compliance with animal welbeing requirements, but are disturbing for neighbours, for a year now, no administrative responsibility has been assigned to animal owners, at the same time, no other effective way of remedying the disorder has been created instead. The Ombudsman’s Office has called on the Ministry of Agriculture to remedy this shortcoming by 1 November.

Due to inaction of the local government, children with mental health disorders are forced to study in another municipality’s school and stay in boarding facilities

Several children of Rezekne municipality staying in the social services centre Vecružina are forced to travel more than 80 km to Daugavpils Stropi Primary School and stay in the boarding facilities. Instead of a clear solution, Rezekne municipality only promises to ‘discuss the opportunity’ so that children can study in one of the schools in the municipality.

Documents prepared by the Ombudsman’s Office:

• Opinion in the case regarding re-registration of the birth of an adopted child whose birth has been registered abroad

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) has called on Parliament to hold the Charity Commission to account after it failed to comply with recommendations following an investigation into its handling of concerns about sexual abuse.

PHSO investigated two cases involving the Commission and how it handled concerns regarding serious safeguarding issues of sexual exploitation and child sex abuse at two separate charities. The investigations uncovered several failings, including around its decision making and its communication with complainants. 

The reports, issued to the Commission in March 2024, recommended that the Commission apologised and provided financial redress to both complainants, and took action to stop the same failures being repeated. This included reviewing its handling of these two cases and the original decisions, and its risk assessment and communication guidance.

Financial remedy has been provided to both complainants. However, while the Commission has reviewed its case handling, the Commission has not complied with all our recommendations, and, in particular has not acknowledged or addressed all the failings identified, implemented service improvements to our satisfaction or accounted for the decisions it made.

Since the reports were issued, PHSO has had extensive discussions with the Commission regarding compliance with recommendations in both cases. In March 2025, PHSO took the rare decision to lay the reports before Parliament so that Parliament could hold the Commission to account.  

The Commission then issued legal proceedings to prevent the reports being laid. Parliament have now intervened and asked that the reports are brought to Parliament’s attention.

The reports have been laid today before Parliament with a request that it intervenes to find a resolution that will put things right for both complainants.

Parliament may arrive at its own views about rectifying the injustice. We have shared what we consider to be an appropriate remedy.

Lara Hall, 37, complained that the Commission failed to appropriately respond to her concerns about her sexual exploitation by a trustee at a UK charity.

Lara, who waived her right to anonymity, said the Commission failed to communicate sensitively as would have been appropriate given that they were working with a vulnerable survivor of sexual abuse and a whistleblower. 

PHSO’s investigation found failings in how the Commission communicated with Lara and in its decision making. The Commission did not follow its safeguarding and risk assessment guidance and it also failed to keep Lara informed throughout the handling of her complaint, including when it decided, without explanation, not to proceed with a course of action it had previously assured her it was going to take.

Lara said:

“The Charity Commission’s repeated failures have caused me profound pain and ongoing injustice. Instead of holding a trustee to account for appalling sexual exploitation, it questioned my experience and forced me to relive my worst trauma. How can survivors feel safe reporting abuse if they think they will be treated like I have? 

“By trying to block Parliament from seeing the reports, the Commission attempted to avoid scrutiny - striking at the heart of accountability in our democracy. Even now, it refuses to accept responsibility or act to put things right.

“It is my hope that by bringing the reports to Parliament’s attention action will finally be taken. The Commission must urgently address safeguarding to protect vulnerable people. Right now, it is failing in its core duty.

“It is time for change, oversight, and accountability within the Charity Sector so what happened to me is never repeated. I call on Parliament to hold the Commission to account and restore public trust. People deserve to feel safe approaching charities, and they deserve a regulator that takes safeguarding seriously.”

In another case investigated by PHSO, Damian Murray, 66, complained about how the Commission and the Department for Education (DfE) responded to his serious allegations regarding the concealment of non-recent child sexual abuse by a charity that founded and ran a college.

Our investigation found the Commission failed to understand or consider all the issues in Damian’s complaint. It did not show that it had looked at all the relevant evidence relating to his complaint, and it did not assess the charity’s failings in accordance with its risk and safeguarding guidance.

Failings were also found with DfE’s decision-making process. DfE complied with our recommendations for service improvements, and we are satisfied with the actions it took to put things right.

Damian, from Leeds and who also waived his right to anonymity, said:

“For over seven years the Charity Commission has refused to act upon my complaint about the concealment of child sexual abuse.

“The Charity Commission has doggedly resisted all efforts by me, and latterly the Parliamentary Ombudsman, to encourage it properly or promptly to discharge its statutory responsibilities, choosing rather to shield the charity and its Trustees from scrutiny and accountability.

“After much unnecessary time incurred due to this resistance, the Ombudsman's report has now been laid in Parliament. I trust now that politicians will hold the Commission to account, where I as an ordinary UK citizen failed.

“By stark contrast with the Commission, I very much appreciate the careful, professional and empathetic way that the Ombudsman's team have dealt with me and with the complex and consequential concerns I have raised.”

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman CEO, Rebecca Hilsenrath KC (Hon) said: 

“The Charity Commission indicated throughout our investigations that they did not agree with our findings.  They have not complied with the bulk of our recommendations, despite our best efforts and our willingness to work with them to ensure compliance.

“It is important that the Commission provides a full apology for their failings and reassures Lara and Damian that they will put things right by complying completely with our recommendations. They have not done this so far. 

“Our report has now been laid in the House of Commons, following the intervention of Parliament last week. The Commission had prevented us from doing so by bringing legal proceedings. We act on behalf of Parliament to hold Government and other national bodies to account for failures, and we have a responsibility to make Parliament aware of cases of non-compliance. I am pleased that Parliament has taken an interest in these cases and has given us the opportunity to bring them to the attention of the House so that it can intervene.

“The purpose of our investigations is always to encourage learning and service improvements. If an organisation looks at what went wrong, it will be able to stop the same mistake from happening again.”

Die Vizepräsidentin des Landtages Brandenburg, Dr. Jouleen Gruhn, hat heute zwei Petitionen für den Erhalt des Krankenhauses in Wittstock/Dosse entgegengenommen. Die Unterschriften wurden vom Wittstocker Bürgermeister, Dr. Philipp Wacker, und dem Vereinsvorstand von „Wittstock zeigt Gesicht“ übergeben.

Vizepräsidentin Dr. Gruhn dankte den Vertreterinnen und Vertretern für ihr Engagement und sagte: „Das Thema gesundheitliche Versorgung liegt uns sehr am Herzen.“ Deshalb sei der Erhalt des Krankenhauses in Wittstock auch auf der Tagesordnung des Gesundheitsausschusses, der in dieser Woche tagt, „ganz großgeschrieben“, ergänzte die Vizepräsidentin. Auch das Landtagsplenum werde sich am 24. September mit dem Thema befassen. Bei der Petition „für den Erhalt des Krankenhausstandortes Wittstock/Dosse“ sind insgesamt 3.553 Unterschriften gesammelt worden. Bei der Online-Petition des Vereins „Wittstock zeigt Gesicht“ sind es 16.818 Stimmen.

Allgemeine Informationen zum Petitionsverfahren sind hier zu finden: Das Petitionsverfahren - Landtag Brandenburg

El personal de atención educativa es imprescindible para garantizar el éxito educativo y la equidad en estos centros

El Síndic de Greuges ha recibido quejas de diversas direcciones de centros escolares de elevada complejidad por la pérdida de técnicos de integración social (TIS) y educadores sociales (ES) para el nuevo curso escolar 2025/2026. Esta situación preocupa gravemente a las direcciones de los centros, que consideran a estos profesionales esenciales para atender al alumnado y a las familias en contextos sociales desfavorecidos.

Aunque el número de TIS ha aumentado en los últimos años en los centros públicos —se ha pasado de 215 TIS en el curso 2018/2019 a 684 en el curso 2024/2025—, la institución denuncia que la cobertura sigue siendo insuficiente. De hecho, en 2023, el 41 % de los centros de alta complejidad no contaban con esta figura. Respecto a las ratios, en 2023 había un TIS por cada 276 alumnos de centros de máxima complejidad, y uno por cada 500 alumnos en centros de alta complejidad. En el caso de los ES, la ratio era de uno por cada 2.000 alumnos en centros de elevada complejidad.

Además, la síndica percibe que estos profesionales no están suficientemente integrados en las plantillas de los centros. Por ejemplo, la resolución que regula las plantillas de los centros del sector público no los incluye, y la mayoría no están integrados en los claustros, como si fueran personal externo.

Ante esta situación, la institución pide incrementar la dotación de personal de atención educativa en los centros con complejidad. En concreto, propone garantizar un mínimo de dos dotaciones de TIS en los centros de máxima complejidad y un mínimo de una en los centros de alta complejidad. También solicita que se garanticen plantillas más multidisciplinares que incorporen personal del ámbito social, como los ES, y también profesionales de la salud. "El personal de atención educativa en los centros con elevada complejidad es imprescindible para garantizar la equidad y avanzar hacia el éxito educativo de todo el alumnado", ha destacado la síndica.

Al mismo tiempo, la síndica insta al Departamento de Educación y Formación Profesional a actualizar la clasificación de los centros educativos según su nivel de complejidad. El sistema actual data del año 2021, antes de la aprobación del Decreto 11/2021 de admisión de alumnado. Por tanto, no refleja el impacto de los últimos cambios sociodemográficos, el incremento del alumnado con necesidades educativas ni las políticas de escolarización equilibrada.

Finalmente, la institución defiende que la financiación de los centros educativos no es lo suficientemente equitativa, ya que no se tiene suficientemente en cuenta su complejidad a la hora de configurar las plantillas. La linealidad de la financiación de los centros, especialmente en el sector concertado, no contribuye a garantizar la igualdad de oportunidades del alumnado. La institución también recuerda que esta clasificación no se aplica todavía a la hora de configurar las plantillas financiadas con fondos públicos de los centros concertados.