Education has always held a special place in minority protection. On the one hand, being able to transmit their culture, language or religion to their children through instruction is essential for the survival of minorities as a distinct community. On the other hand, accessing an education of equal value as that received by the majority is crucial in enabling minority members, once grown-up, to enjoy equal social and professional opportunities. Accordingly, education can both be a means of identity preservation and of social inclusion; a vehicle for maintaining their distinctiveness and an instrument of integration into the mainstream society. As argued by Holly Cullen, minorities’ right to education precisely includes these two dimensions: equality of opportunity, on the one side, pluralism or identity transmission on the other. 1 These two concerns, however, are not without tension: while the objective of socio-economic inclusion seems to be best served by promoting identical and integrated instruction for all children, this model entails a risk of eroding minorities’ specificities and furthering assimilation. Conversely, whereas separate schooling in the minority language or religion may appear as the best way to protect minorities’ distinct identity, it may isolate them and jeopardize their integration within the broader society. 2 This dilemma epitomises a query that is at the core of the