|
Back to: Third Session of the Ad Hoc Committee
Daily summary of discussions
Daily
summary of discussions related to
ARTICLE17: EDUCATION
UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities
Third session of the Ad Hoc Committee - Daily Summary
A service made possible by Landmine Survivors Network *
Volume 4, #5
May 28, 2004
AFTERNOON SESSION
Commenced: 3:01 PM
Adjourned: 6:00 PM
The Russian Federation asserted that Article 17 must
address the education of persons, not children, with disabilities and
proposed changes throughout the article accordingly. It noted that some
people remain in secondary education beyond the age of 18. 17.1 (d)
should be appended with “and granting, if need be, possibilities of
education at home." A new subparagraph 17.1(e) should be added:
“Granting to all persons with disabilities a professional training and
retraining taking their physical and psychological limitations into
account.” The words “taking account of medical and social recommendations”
should be appended to 17.2(a).
Sierra Leone reserved the right at a later stage to
propose removing or canceling all references to children in this article,
and directed the attention of the Committee to footnote 56, which mentions
the WG's discussions about this in January. Sierra Leone also cautioned
against making specific references to technology, since they may eventually
become obsolete. “Children cannot wait for progressive realization”
and references to it in 17.1 could diminish the obligation to action
and should be deleted.
Ireland called for removal of the reference to progressive
realization in the chapeau of 17.1 to replace the second sentence with
“The education of persons with disabilities shall be directed to:” On
a linguistic note, the EU clarified that once something
is full, it cannot be made “fullest,” so “fullest” in 17.1(c) should
be replaced with “full.” In 17.1(d), “take into account” should be replaced
by with the more positive “promoting.” The chapeau of 17.2 should be
revised to read: “In realizing this right, States parties shall endeavor
to ensure:” The goal of 17.2(a) is inclusive and accessible education,
but availability and location should be separated; therefore 17.2(a)
should be revised as follows: “that persons with disabilities can avail
of inclusive and accessible education (including equal access to early
childhood and preschool education) and that such education shall be
provided to the extent possible in the communities in which they live.”
In 17.2(b) the words “the provision of required support, including the
specialised training of teachers, school counselors and psychologists”
should be replaced by with “Appropriate support including specialized
training for teachers and other staff.” The EU further suggested that
17.2(c) should be moved up to become the first subparagraph, as it is
an absolute right. The chapeau of 17.3 should be revised, in response
to the debate about whether and how alternative education should be
provided, to read as follows: “Where the general education system does
not yet adequately meet the needs of persons with disabilities States
Parties shall take appropriate measures to promote alternative forms
of education. Any alternative forms of education provided under this
article should:”
In order to conform with the Education clause of the Standard Rules,
17.3(a) should be revised to read: “be closely linked to and reflective
of the same curriculum and aim to reflect the same standards and objectives
provided in the general education system, taking into account the learning
and development needs of persons with disabilities.”
The text of 17.3(c) be reworded: “allow for choice between general and
special education systems." Paragraph 17.4 should be expanded and
reworded as follows: “States Parties shall take appropriate measures
to ensure that persons with disabilities may choose to be taught using
a variety of communication modes and shall work to ensure quality education
to students with disabilities by ensuring that teachers are able to
use different communication modes.” The EU expressed concern that there
is no reference to secondary education, and recommended inserting draft
language on this in 17.5. It replaced the last sentence in this paragraph
with “To that end, States Parties shall ensure that reasonable accommodation
is provided.”
Argentina also suggested modifying the first paragraph
to address “persons with disabilities.”
Costa Rica called for the inclusion of university
education and technical training as well as primary and secondary education,
and proposed inserting in the first sentence of 17.1, after "education,"
the words “all stages of life and all educational levels and services."
A new subparagraph should be inserted between 17.1(a) and (b), reading:
“address the issues of disability, persons with disabilities and human
rights in the curriculum of all educational programs." In 17.1(c),
“self identity, talent, creativity” be inserted after “The development
of.” Costa Rica supported the EU’s proposal to replace “ensure” with
“endeavor to” in the chapeau of 17.2. In 17.2(a), the EU’s proposed
language should be amended by inserting “maximum” before “extent possible.”
In 17.2(b) “instructors” should be added after “teachers”; and “materials”
should be inserted after “medium." In 17.4, to allow for the possibility
of future technological developments, the words “using alterative modes
of communication, including” should be inserted after “curriculum”;
and "as appropriate” should be inserted after “Braille.” An additional
subparagraph should read: “Deaf and deaf blind persons have the right
to receive education in their own groups and to become bilingual in
sign language in their national spoken and written languages.”
Israel recommended qualifying the chapeau of 17.1,
so that “take all possible steps” would replace “ensure.” In the first
sentence in 17.2(a) “their own” should be replaced by "each."
A new subparagraph should be added between 17.2(a) and (b), reading:
“Priority is given to the integration of children with disabilities
in the general school system.” Two new subparagraphs should be inserted
after 17.2(b). The first should read: "Accessibility of the school
system to persons with disabilities whose children study in the school,
on an equal footing, with other parents." The next new subparagraph
should read: "Appropriate representations for teachers with disabilities
in the school system, including by way of prevention of discrimination
on the basis of disability in recruitment and throughout the course
of employment and making reasonable accommodations in recruitment and
throughout the course of employment.” 17.2(c) should be appended with
“unless accommodation of the child’s needs on account of his or her
disability would impose an extremely unreasonable burden." In 17.5
“ensure” should be replaced by “take all possible steps”; “may access”
should be replaced by “in relation to”; and “To that end” should be
replaced by “In order to secure the implementation of the provisions
of the paragraph.” After 17.5, two new subparagraphs should be added,
as follows:
“(a) Persons with disabilities have access to all such systems including
by way of accommodations in examinations and in the curriculum on an
equal basis with others;
(b) appropriate representation for persons with disabilities and staff
in all of the above systems, including by way of prevention of discrimination
on the basis of disability and the making of reasonable accommodations
in employment and recruitment in such systems.
Morocco suggested rewording the chapeau of 17.3 to
read: “Acknowledging that education of persons with disabilities in
the general education system should be the rule, and the provision of
specialist education services the exception.”
Brazil supported existing language in 17.2 (a) because
it adequately represents the choice between general and special education
systems. It supported existing language in 17.3 because it adequately
reflects the idea as stated in footnote 62 that these education systems
are not two mutually exclusive options.
Yemen suggested adding “sociologists” after “psychologists”
in 17.3 (b) and made recommendations related only to the Arabic version
of the draft Convention text for 17.3, including among other things
mentioning “apprenticeship.”
China circulated new draft language for this Article.
The chapeau of 17.1 should be retained, while all its subparagraphs
should be deleted and replaced with:
"a. education shall be directed to the full development of the
human personality and sense of dignity and strengthen the respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms;
"b. education shall enable all persons with disabilities to participate
effectively in a free society,
"c. education shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship
among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and
"d. education shall further the activities of the United Nations
for the maintenance of peace."
Paragraphs 17.2 and 17.3 should be deleted and replaced with a new paragraph
17.2:
"States Parties shall take effective and appropriate measures to
progressively realize the rights of PWD to education on an equal basis:
"a. In order to develop an inclusive and accessible general education
to meet the needs of persons with disabilities, States Parties shall
provide support, including the specialized training of teachers, school
counselors and psychologists, an accessible curriculum, an accessible
teaching medium and technologies, alternative and augmentative communication
modes, alternative learning strategies, accessible physical environment,
or other reasonable accommodations to ensure the full participation
of students with disabilities;
"b. Where the general education does not adequately meet the needs
of persons with disabilities, States Parties shall develop special or
alternative forms of education. Any such special or alternative forms
of education should:
"(i) Adhere to the standards and objectives provided in the general
education system, and
"(ii) In no way be a barrier for persons with disabilities to participate
in the general education."
Paragraph 17.4 and 17.5 would then be renumbered as 17.3 and 17.4, respectively.
In the new paragraph 17.4, “shall” is replaced by “take appropriate
measures to,” and “may access general” should be replaced by “have equal
opportunity to access.” The final sentence -- " To that end, States
Parties shall render appropriate assistance to persons with disabilities."
-- should be deleted.
New Zealand explained that 17.1(a), (b), and (c) are
based on Article 29 of the CRC, and were included in the draft text
because these aspects of a child’s development seemed particularly pertinent
to persons with disabilities. Those components -- a sense of dignity
and self worth, human potential, participating effectively in society,
and the development of a child’s mental and physical abilities -- are
often neglected in the education of persons with disabilities. The Chinese
proposal, on the other hand, while similar to Article 13 of ICESCR in
mentioning understanding among all nations and racial, ethnic, and religious
groups, and furthering the objectives of the UN for the maintenance
of peace, is not disability-specific. New Zealand proposed deleting
17.1(d), as the obligation related to the best interests of child is
adequately addressed elsewhere in the draft and in the CRC. Furthermore,
the notion of “individualized education plans” go beyond the rights
granted to other children and are pedagogical tools that are go in and
out of fashion, so should not be included in a legally binding treaty
but should instead be addressed in national action plans. New Zealand
supported the EU's suggested reordering of subparagraphs, which it said
would do "less damage to the original text" than Israel's
proposed addition to the end of 17.2(c). In the chapeau of 17.2, “ensure”
should be replaced by “endeavor.” In 17.3, both instances "learning"
should be replaced by "education." While the difference in
meaning between the two is uncertain, using the same word throughout
would make the document more consistent. The last sentence in 17.5 should
be reformulated according to the EU's proposal given the uncertainty
of what was meant by “appropriate assistance”.
The Holy See affirmed the importance of achieving
coherence with other international texts. In order to be consistent
with the ICCPR, the ICESCR, the CRC, and the UDHR, this Convention's
subparagraph 17.1(d) should be modified by inserting, after the words
“the best interest of the child,” the words “while respecting the rights
and responsibilities of parents and legal guardians concerning the child’s
education.”
Bahrain also suggested modifying the first paragraph
to address “persons with disabilities.”
Kenya proposed the deletion of “progressively” from
the chapeau of 17.1, to clarify that the right to education is expressly
given. In 17.5, “professional training” should be inserted after “vocational
training.”
Japan supported the EU proposal for 17.2, as it strikes
a balance between the availability of the educational system and that
which is targeted to be achieved. Language in 17.3, (a) and (b) should
however be retained. The EU’s proposal for 17.3(c) should be appended
with “upon careful consideration of the best interests of students with
disabilities” as these decisions cannot be made whimsically or capriciously.
17.4 should be amended according to the EU proposal as the Convention
should not limit itself to sign language or Braille when other forms
of communication might be necessary. Language in 17.5 should be retained.
Canada affirmed that every child should be included
in an education system that meets his or her individual needs, optimizing
the opportunity to learn and be included in a supportive education system.
This will benefit all people with disabilities and society as a whole,
as school is where attitudes can be formulated that will result in real
change. Substantial work needs to be done on this Article, but Canada
does not have a specific proposal at this time.
Australia suggested adding “Training” after “Education”
in the title and elsewhere to be consistent with its general applicability
to all PWD. Language to “ensure” was qualified in 17.2 as per the EU
proposal with “endeavour to”, and in 17.4, to be replaced with “encouraging
and promoting.” It supported Costa Rica’s amendments regarding communication
in 17.4. In 17.5, the words “and with appropriate assistance” should
be inserted after “others,” and the remainder of the paragraph should
be deleted.
Lebanon proposed the replacement of “school counselors
and psychologists” in 17.2(b) with “other educational staff as needed.”
In 17.5, the word “general” should be replaced by “all academic and
technical education in public or private institutions at all levels
of education.” At the end of 17.5, the following sentence should be
appended: “States parties shall guarantee that their national education
systems recognize and certify skills acquired through alternative forms
of vocational training for persons with disabilities.”
South Africa also called for the addition of “and
Training” to the title, in keeping with the principles of lifelong learning,
the Convention should provide a spectrum of educational processes across
a range of ages. In 17.1(b), after “effectively,” the words “and equitably”
should be inserted, to allow for fair provisions and to ensure that
persons with disabilities are able to participate in an equitable manner.
17.2 should be retained but its provisions especially in 12.2(b) should
be the prerogative of national policies. 17.4 should be deleted as it
is specific a type of disability, and this Article should address all
disabilities. In 17.5 “general" in relation to tertiary education
is unclear and should be deleted. In 17.5, after “life long learning,”
the words "and teaching" should be inserted in order to ensure
that the delivery of teaching methods would include adult education,
though this “would not be provided on an equal basis but on an equitable
basis.” In the same paragraph "assistance" should be replaced
by “support,” which is a more comprehensive concept. Students will continue
to be excluded from education unless there is a provision for equitable
education, and thus South Africa proposed a new paragraph 17.5 bis,
as follows: “a) ensure non discriminatory access to the learning environment;
b) ensure an enabling environment that ensures equitable participation
of students with disabilities in the learning process.”
Serbia and Montenegro supported the proposal of the
EU for 17.3, but retaining the words “free and informed choice.” The
concept of professional training is better placed in Article 22, "Right
to Work." In 17.2(b), the concept of long distance education could
be included.
Thailand emphasized the right to an education on an
equal basis with others, one that is responsive to the needs of individuals,
and called for deletion of “progressively” from 17.1. In 17.2 Thailand
agreed with the EU’s amendment, except that “needed,” a student-centered
term, should replace “appropriate” which could be open to too much interpretation.
The text in 17.3 values the importance of choice, does not align itself
with any specific educational model, and should be retained. While acknowledging
the importance of keeping the concept of alternative communications
as broad as possible, it endorsed Costa Rica's additional language recognising
sign language. This is part of the cultural heritage of the Deaf community,
a visual language with its own grammatical structure, and a basis for
cultural and spiritual growth. Likewise, Braille is the tactile representation
of written script, and a fundamental tool of literacy, equivalent to
the ability to read and write print. South Africa’s amendment regarding
“support” should be incorporated, as should the EU’s reference to secondary
education and Australia’s additional language on training.
Uganda supported the addition of “training” to the
title and supported the deletion of “progressively” as recommended by
other delegates. 17.2 should be appended with: “States Parties shall
encourage the employment of teachers with disabilities in their general
education systems and shall ensure the removal of legislative barriers
to persons with disabilities becoming teachers and shall raise awareness
on the needs of children with disabilities.” 17.2 (c) should be appended
“and measures shall be taken to meet their educational needs” because
without this students with disabilities cannot benefit form free education.
Uganda also proposed text for 17.5(bis): “States Parties shall ensure
that vocational rehabilitation, training and retraining opportunities
are open to people who acquire a disability in the course of their working
life.”
India recommended the following provision to appear
after 17.5: “The State shall provide for functional education to persons
with severe, intellectual and multiple disabilities on a continued basis.”
Mexico supported Costa Rica’s amendment so that the
Article would encompass all educational levels. In 17.1(b), the words
“and inclusive” should be inserted after “free.” Text in 17.1(d) on
“individualising educational plans” should be replaced with “satisfying
the special educational needs of PWD.” Mexico supported Costa Rica’s
addition of “materials” to “methods and technologies” in 17.2(b). A
new subparagraph 17.2(d) should read: “promoting access to scholarships
and financial resources for persons with disabilities, without restricting
them solely to those who are attending mandatory education.” In 17.3,
in light of footnote 60, “learning” should be replaced with “teaching.”
The first sentence in17.4 should be rewritten: “States Parties shall
ensure that persons with sensory disabilities have access to sign language
or Braille as appropriate to encourage their learning and to continue
in their program of studies."
The Republic of Korea also suggested modifying the
first paragraph to address “persons with disabilities.”
China responded to New Zealand’s comments on its draft
of this Article by emphasizing that education is an economic, social,
and cultural right that should also apply to PWD.
Trinidad and Tobago supported adding “and training”
into the title, as well as the inclusion of a reference to all levels
of education so the text is not confined to specific levels. While the
Article should be amended to address all PWD, the text of 17.1(d) should
retain the reference to children so as not to appear to allow others
to determine the best interests of a child.
Yemen called for the incorporation of “Training” to
this Article: the objective of training is “know-how," whereas
"education is to train a person in thinking.”
Libya amended 17.3(c) such that “The level of specialized
education must be identical to the one of general education so as to
be able to raise persons with disabilities to the level of non disabled
people and give them access to higher education.”
Jordan amended the title to “Education, training,
and life long learning,” added “and education” after “learning” in the
chapeau of 17.3 and deleted 17.3(c), as both 17.2(a) and (c) both address
choice, and the latter was redundant.
The floor was opened to comments from NGOs.
World Blind Union speaking also on behalf of the International
Disability Alliance and the Preparatory Committee of Japan Disability
Forum insisted that the concept of education should not be watered down
to “learning." They called upon States to recognize their jointly
agreed upon text calling for education to be provided both in inclusive
school settings as well as in groups for blind, deaf-blind, and Deaf
persons.
World Federation of the Deafblind emphasized that that no education
for deafblind people means no communication, no development, and no
information. Deafblind individuals are often excluded, even within the
disability community. This document and these negotiations have brought
the disability community to a consensus that is more than a compromise.
International Labor Organization strongly agreed that
references to “training” should be incorporated into this Article and
its title and called for an added reference to the specialized training
of trainers and instructors to 17.2 (b)’s reference to teachers. Trainer
qualifications should be covered in 17.3, which deals with alternative
forms of training. Any alternative, non formal training including workplace
training shall be made available to provide opportunities for the development,
recognition, and certification of skills relevant to the labor market
and to the national qualifications framework, as many PWD train for
years for jobs which are irrelevant or unavailable. The EU’s amendments
on reasonable accommodation is insufficient, and the last sentence of
17.5 should be revised: “To that end, States Parties shall develop equal
opportunity strategies, measures, and programmes to promote and implement
training for PWD, with the objective of reducing inequalities.” There
should also be inclusion of vocational and career guidance and information
in accessible format, and employment counseling for persons with disabilities.
National Human Rights Institutions, and the Asia Pacific
Forum of the National Human Rights Institutions expressed concern that
a linkage between progressive realization and the right to education
is “unsuitable” and hoped that this will be addressed in informal consultations.
The Convention should offer options for many approaches to the right
to education because often a model is not determined by the characteristics
of a person, but also by circumstances of families and parents who may
choose one model over another. In this regard the EU’s text strikes
a balance among various approaches to education, removes any prejudice
for one approach over the other, and builds on the UNSR. The EU’s text
also addresses NHRI / APF’s concern regarding the quality of education
because it ensures an equal standard regardless of placement, model
or delivery. To support the position of Mexico and Thailand, the linguistic
needs of various disability groups especially those with hearing impairments
should be recognized along with references to specific scripts and languages,
as education has no meaning if it is not delivered in a language PWD
can comprehend.
The Chair concluded by noting the need for informal consultations for
negotiations to move forward.
Volume 4, #6
June 1, 2004
Morning Session
Commenced: 10:29 AM
Recessed: 10:31 AM
Reconvened: 10:41 AM
Adjourned: 1:01 PM
Following audio difficulties, the remaining Article 17 NGO interventions
were made on the topic of education and disability. Delegates then discussed
Article 18, Participation in political and public life, exploring a
range of political activities and spheres. The Committee began its discussion
of Article 19, Accessibility, with some delegations supporting very
specific requirements while others pushed for a broader
World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) expressed support
for some portions of the EU proposal, with reservations regarding incorporating
17.3 and 17.4 together. Combining communication modes is a good idea,
but sign language should be left out since it is a language rather than
a communication method. Most WG members supported mentioning sign language
in this Article. If it is not included, the Convention will be weaker
than the Standard Rules (SR) and open to the interpretation that sign
language should be excluded. Since the Convention’s purpose is to “liberate
us from oppression,” the linguistic rights of Deaf people should be
an essential part of it. As a result of the misperception that Deaf
people are unable to learn multiple languages, Deaf children are sometimes
forced to stop signing.
Inclusion International (II) urged that, in order to meet the
Millennium Development Goals, the Convention should guarantee students
with intellectual disabilities “the right to free and compulsory primary
education without qualifiers.” In some developing countries only two
to five percent of children with intellectual disabilities are in school,
and in other countries their school attendance is disproportionately
low. Children with intellectual disabilities should be assured equal
access, and the choice of inclusion, at all levels. II supported Canada’s
position that this Article requires a substantial rewrite. The members
of the International Disability Alliance believe that inclusion should
be the norm. Inclusive education is not only a basic right, it is good
public policy. “Inclusive education is better education for all.”
People with Disabilities Australia (PWDA), also speaking
for the National Association of Community Legal Centres of Australia,
expressed disappointment that some delegations, including Australia,
have proposed amending language regarding States' obligations to ensure
an inclusive education to PWD. These obligations should not be diluted
by adding qualifying phrases. “Education is essential to the realization
of human rights.” States who have made an early commitment to equality
should not abrogate responsibility for PWD inclusion by reducing State
obligations to “mere options.” Specialized education in disability-specific
languages and skills have value, but should be provided inclusively
within the mainstream educational system. Children with disabilities
(CWD) should have opportunities to interact with non-disabled people
in order to develop social skills and be part of an inclusive society.
PWDA recommended amending 17.1 to recognize the rights of all PWD to
an inclusive education in a school of their choice in their local community.
It also suggested deletion of 17.3, which would justify the continuing
discrimination against, and segregation of, PWD. Finally, it supported
the International Labor Organization’s recommendations concerning school-to-work
transitional education and other vocational rehabilitation training.
Save the Children (STC) emphasized the right of children
and adults with disabilities to education and training, and States'
obligations in that regard. Inclusive education is essential to both
academic and social development. It proposed the following revisions
of 17.2(b): “The provision of adequate support for change of the education
system, positive attitudes for stakeholders, appropriate training and
mentoring of teachers and educational support staff, student centered
curriculum, flexible teaching methods, appropriate teaching aids and
equipment, alternative and augmentative communication modes, an inclusive
physical and learning environment, parent and community involvement
to ensure the full participation of students with disabilities.” In
17.4, it encouraged amending the wording to read: “States' Parties shall
ensure that students with communication disabilities have the right
to education in alternative language and/or the alternative communications
systems, to become bilingual and to learn the communication, learning
and mobility skills for inclusive education, and full participation
within the class or school environment. States' Parties shall take appropriate
legislative, administrative and other measures for full inclusive education
of all students with disabilities by ensuring appropriately skilled
teachers and basic additional resources.” “Communication disabilities”
include blindness, deafness, autism, severe spasticity, learning and
intellectual impairments. The text of these proposed amendments is available
online at www.savethechildren.org.uk. STC also supported Kenya, Australia,
South Africa, and on some issues, the European Union, World Blind Union,
the ILO, World Deaf Federation and Inclusion International. It also
recognized the Salamanca Statement, Dakar Framework and SR on education.
The goal is to “avoid pre-selected training on the basis of perceived
disability instead of the potential of the child." Special education
and training should be available for persons who cannot fully develop
their potential in inclusive settings because of specific learning needs,
but this special education should be provided in the community and,
wherever possible, within existing schools structures.
* Disclaimer
|
