 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Article
24 - Education
Background Documents | Article
24 Background
Seventh Session | Sixth Session | Fifth
Session | Fourth Session | Third
Session
Working Group | References
Fourth Session
Governments
Sudan
Non-governmental organizations
Center for Studies on Inclusive Education
Children's Rights Alliance for England
International Disability Caucus
Working Meeting of NGOs for people with disability from Ukraine, Russia, Belarus & Moldova
World Federation of the Deaf
Comments, proposals and amendments submitted electronically
Governments
SUDAN
PROPOSAL ON DRAFT ARTICLE 17
Education:
-Add to article 17 c the phrase in bold so it would read as follows:
Allow a free and informed choice between general and special systems; and
any other type of education that suits the disability needs
Non-governmental Organizations
CENTER
FOR STUDIES ON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
Article 17 and inclusive education in the new UN Disability Convention:
Briefing from the Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education, August 2004
Summary
In this briefing, CSIE argues that the current draft of article 17 (Education)
of the new UN Disability Convention fails to ensure that all disabled learners
have a right to inclusive learning in mainstream education. It actually
works against this by providing for a right to choose segregated ‘special’
education and by singling out certain categories of disability.
If the new Convention is to fully enshrine the right to education in a single,
inclusive system of education which is adaptable to the best interests of
each and every child, the possibility of choosing segregation should be
entirely removed and the obligation to ensure inclusive provision should
be strengthened, including through proper targeting of resources and the
reduction of all forms of segregation.
The Centre’s proposal for an amended Article 17 to take account of these
points is on the Back Page (Page 6) of this Briefing Paper.
Background
In January 2004, a draft version of the new Convention was produced by the
Ad Hoc Working Group which formed the basis for discussions at a meeting
in New York in May/June (the third session) of the Ad Hoc Committee, made
up of representatives from governments and non-government organisations
(NGOs).1 The working text which resulted
from these latest discussions, including article 17 on Education, takes
the form of the original Working Group version with inserted amendments
from participants. It represents a record of contributions at the meeting
rather than an officially proposed final text or a resolution of key issues.2
These issues must therefore be addressed in the next (fourth) session of
the Ad Hoc Committee in August/September 2004. 3
In response to the May/Jun negotiations, the International Disability Alliance,
representing seven major international NGOs,4
has proposed a version of article 17 which addresses some of the problems
identified so far, notably from CSIE’s point of view, the removal of choice
of segregated, ‘special’ schooling for some children. CSIE welcomes this
NGO version but believes it needs strengthening further to secure full rights
to inclusive education for all.
The coming negotiations between governments and NGOs present an unprecedented
opportunity to ensure that children’s right to inclusive education is enshrined
in international standards for disabled people and that segregated schooling
is not an option for any child. Failure to reach agreement on these lines
would be a serious setback to realising disabled and non-disabled children’s
equal rights to high quality mainstream education.
Choosing between segregation and inclusion
As CSIE has argued from the outset, one of the major problems with the draft
of article 17 in the official working text is that it allows for the segregation
of disabled learners and learners with special educational needs into ‘special’
schools as a legitimate human right. Paragraph 3 says that:
‘where the general education system does not adequately meet the needs of
persons with disabilities special and alternative forms of learning should
be made available. Any such special and alternative forms of learning should
… (c) allow a free and informed choice between general and special systems.’
This elevation of a right to choose above the right to inclusive education
is also reflected in paragraph 2:
‘… States parties shall ensure (a) that all persons with disabilities can
choose inclusive and accessible education in their own community (including
access to early childhood and pre-school education).’
Seeing segregation into separate ‘special’ schools as a legitimate human
right fails to take account of the mounting empirical evidence of the detrimental
effects on individuals and society of segregating disabled learners into
these so-called ‘special’ educational facilities.5
It also fails to take into account the developing interpretation of the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), which has increasingly
been concerned with including children in mainstream education rather than
in segregated ‘special’ provision. One significant outcome of the day of
General Discussion in 1997 by the Committee on the Rights of the Child on
the rights of children with disabilities was that the segregation of children
with disabilities ‘for care, treatment or education’ represented a breach
of the Convention.6 Both the UN Standard
Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities
(1993) and the UNESCO Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (1994)
clearly indicate that the existence of separate ‘special’ educational provision
is only acceptable insofar as mainstream education has not yet developed
sufficiently to accommodate all children.
The drafting of the new Convention provides an opportunity to build in to
international human rights law the imperative for governments to develop
a single, inclusive system of education which includes disabled people from
the outset. It is a fallacy that separate systems are needed to pave the
way before inclusive systems can be put in place. Even in situations where
children are denied education altogether, their rights will not be fully
realised through segregated schooling.
Adapting education to each child
The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, Katarina Tomasevski,
has conceptualised governments’ responsibilities in meeting children’s right
to education in terms of ‘the 4-As’. For the right to education to be fully
realised, governments must make education available, accessible, acceptable
and adaptable.7 CSIE argues that to
realise the right to education in this way is in fact to make it inclusive,
particularly through adopting the fourth ‘A’ of adaptability.
For children and young people, what is considered acceptable is clearly
stated in articles 28 and 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,
ratified (though by no means fully implemented) by all but 2 countries and
reflected in the drafts of article 17 under consideration.
According to the Special Rapporteur, that education must be adaptable has also been widely recognised:8
‘What we have accomplished in human rights – and it is a huge accomplishment
– is the complete conceptual switch stating that no child should be forced
to adapt to education. The principle requires complete reversal. Education
should adapt to the best interests of each child.’
If the ‘conceptual switch’ to the principle of adaptability is adopted there
should be no legitimate reason for the current controversy about whether
or not a choice of separate ‘special’ education should be maintained for
some disabled children. Mainstream education must change and really does
have to adapt to the best interests of all.
As Katarina Tomasevski points out, the implications of governments applying
the ‘4-A scheme’ are huge:9
‘The challenge is immense – the system of education is required to adapt
to each individual child, against the historical heritage of excluding all
the children who were deemed not to be able to adapt to the education system
as it was.’
The problem with making sensory disabilities a ‘special’ case
CSIE recognises the importance of education in and about appropriate systems
of communication and of ensuring learners are enabled to become fluent in
that communication, but has misgivings about identifying particular disabilities,
as currently set out at paragraph 4 of the official working text.
In a Convention in which rights should be realised without discrimination
(articles 2 and 3 of the official working text), the communication requirements
of all learners should without question be covered by paragraph 2 (b) of
the official working text, which states that in realising the right to education
for persons with disabilities, States Parties shall ensure:
‘the provision of required support, including the specialised training of
teachers, school counsellors and psychologists, an accessible curriculum,
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.’
CSIE is also concerned at the elaboration of distinct paragraphs relating
to learners with sensory impairments in the NGO draft from the International
Disability Alliance.
The learning requirements of children and young people with sensory disabilities
should be considered as a matter of course to be covered by the obligation
on governments to make reasonable accommodations and to ensure the accessibility
of the curriculum and other areas of educational provision stated in paragraph
2. In the UK, there are growing numbers of learners with sensory disabilities
being successfully included in mainstream settings. The inclusion in mainstream
of other disabled persons whose representatives frequently advocate separate,
segregated education10 is increasingly
regarded as successful and beneficial for all concerned.
The need for recognition, support and fostering of particular cultures,
communities and identities associated with persons with sensory disabilities
does not require separate educational provision but can be met in fully
inclusive and properly resourced mainstream settings in which education
is highly flexible and provides opportunities for a variety of grouping
arrangements based on the best interests of individual learners. It should
also be recognised that educating children with particular disabilities
‘in their own groups’, because of low prevalence rates, could result in
them having to attend schools outside their locality, thus violating other
significant rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (e.g.
rights to family life and recreational activities). 11
Giving persons with certain disabilities a ‘right to receive education in
their own groups’, as proposed by the NGO draft, would undermine the right
to inclusive education enshrined in the remainder of article 17. Having
rightly proposed removing the choice of segregated ‘special’ schooling as
an option, the International Disability Alliance raises the possibility
of segregation in a new guise, as education for pupils ‘in their own groups’.
As in the official working text, although perhaps not in such an obvious
way, the NGO draft effectively weakens the right to inclusion by pulling
in two directions.
A right to separation was accommodated in the Salamanca Statement and Framework
for Action, undoubtedly weakening it as a result by leaving it open to claims
that the agreement supports both segregated ‘special’ schooling and an inclusive
mainstream. More than ten years after it was formulated, governments continue
to officially espouse a commitment to inclusive education at the same time
as supporting policies and practices which exclude and segregate disabled
learners. CSIE hopes that such mutually contradictory proposals will not
be written into the new Convention in any form and that an unequivocal focus
can be maintained on the right to inclusive education which is available,
accessible, acceptable and adaptable to all.
Resourcing inclusion and reducing exclusion
Because inclusion and exclusion are mutually incompatible concepts it has
to be recognised that wherever exclusion and segregation occur, and in whatever
form, education is not inclusive.
Paragraph 1(a) of article 4 of the official working text says that States
Parties undertake:
‘to adopt legislative, administrative and other measures to give effect
to this Convention, and to amend, repeal or nullify any laws and regulations
and to discourage customs or practices that are inconsistent with this convention.’
CSIE believes that the common lack of understanding that all forms of exclusion
and segregation are ‘inconsistent’ with the development of inclusive education
necessitates an explicit reference to reducing exclusion in article 17.
The conflict between advocating inclusion on the one hand while supporting
both inclusion and exclusion on the other is economic as well as conceptual.
Often a sticking point to the full implementation of the ‘conceptual switch’
from adapting the child to education to adapting education to the child
is financial, as governments and judiciaries cite resources as the reason
for mainstream education failing to adapt to the needs of learners with
particular disabilities.12 While resources
(human and financial) are used to develop inclusive education and to support
exclusion and segregation, most obviously by maintaining a dual system of
‘ordinary’ and ‘special’ education, inclusive education will not be developed
to maximum effect.
Economically, it is far more efficient to target resources towards a single
inclusive education system from the outset than to develop a dual system
of separate education for disabled and non-disabled persons and then have
to work towards bringing about inclusive education. Where dual systems of
education already exist, until a single system can be developed, ‘special’
education should be compatible with certain standards, but the focus should
be on building a restructured and appropriately resourced and supported
mainstream education system that aims to meet the needs of the full diversity
of children in their local areas.
According to the Special Rapporteur on Education, the Salamanca Statement
has failed to bring about high profile global change because it was ‘strong
on nouns like empowerment, inclusion and quality education but extremely
weak on who has the obligation to do what’.13
She has spoken of the importance of ‘coupling human rights guarantees with
adequate funding’.
Article 17 should remind governments that providing the resources for the
development of inclusive education is a necessary part of the obligation
to ensure that the right to education is realised for all disabled people.
The reference in paragraph 1(a) of article 4 of the official working text
to ‘legislative, administrative and other measures’ is a weak statement
in terms of resources for inclusion and needs further elaboration.
In light of the above, and building on the NGO draft, CSIE proposes
the following draft of article 17:
Article 17 (Education)
1. States Parties shall recognise the right of all persons with disabilities
to education. With a view to achieving this right progressively and on the
basis of equal opportunity for all, the education of persons with disabilities
shall be directed to:
a) building a society that is inclusive to all;
b) the full development of the individual’s human potential and sense of
dignity and self worth, and the strengthening of respect for human rights,
fundamental freedoms and human diversity;
c) enabling all persons with disabilities to fully participate in a free
and inclusive society;
d) the development of the individual’s personality, talents and abilities
to his/her fullest potential;
e) recognising and supporting individual learning needs and preferences.
2. States parties shall ensure:
a) that all persons with disabilities can access inclusive education in
their own community including early childhood and pre-school education;
b) the full participation of persons with disabilities, including those
with sensory disabilities, through the provision of required support, including
the specialised training of teachers and other educational means and staff,
an accessible curriculum, accessible teaching medium and materials, appropriate
assistive devices, alternative and augmentative communication means, or
other reasonable accommodations;
c) that no child with disabilities is excluded from free and compulsory
primary education on account of his/her disability;
d) that no person with disability shall be required to undergo any medical
treatment or intervention to correct, improve or alleviate any impairment,
or any actual or perceived disability as a condition of inclusive and full
quality education.
3. States parties shall ensure that all persons with disabilities shall
access secondary and higher education, vocational training, adult education
and lifelong learning on an equal basis with others. To that end appropriate
assistance to persons with disabilities needs to be provided.
4. States Parties should take all legislative, administrative and other
measures to remove all forms of segregation in education.
5. States parties should ensure that financial resources are allocated for
and targeted towards the restructuring of mainstream settings to provide
inclusive education, and encourage segregated special settings, where they
exist, to transfer their material, financial and human resources to facilitate
the inclusion of all learners in inclusive mainstream settings.
Footnotes:
1. A list of the participants in the discussion (document ref A/AC.265/2004/INF/1) is available at www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/documents/a_ac265_2004_inf_1.pdf. The report of the third session of the Ad Hoc Committee on theProtection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons With Disabilities (document ref A/AC.265/2004/5) is available at www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc3reportadv.htm.
2. Extracts from what is referred to
as the ‘official working text’ in this paper are taken from the original
Working Group text. The fully annotated version is available at www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc3modfinal.htm.
3. Information on the fourth session
is available at www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc4.htm.
4. Disabled Peoples International, Inclusion
International, Rehabilitation International, World Blind Union, World Federation
of the Deaf, World Federation of the Deafblind, World Network of Users and
Survivors of Psychiatry. Further information at www.internationaldisabilityalliance.org/.
5. See CSIE’s (2003) paper ‘The case against segregation into special schools: A look at the evidence’.
6. Document ref CRC/C/66, Annex V, para.338(d),
available at www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/crc/doc/days/disabled.pdf.
7. These are explained in four ‘Rights
to Education Primers’, written by Tomasevski in 2001 and available at www.right-to-education.org
– No.1 Removing obstacles in the way of the right to education; No.2 Free
and compulsory education for all children: The gap between promise and performance;
No.3 Human rights obligations: making education available, accessible, acceptable
and adaptable; No.4 Human rights in education as a prerequisite for human
rights education. See also Tomasevski’s keynote address to the CSIE Conference
‘Developing inclusive education: Supporting human rights in local mainstream
schools’, 19 May 2004, available at http://inclusion.org.uk, and CSIE’s
(2002) report Social and educational justice: the human rights framework
for inclusion.
8. Keynote address to the CSIE Conference
‘Developing inclusive education: Supporting human rights in local mainstream
schools’, 19 May 2004, available at http://inclusion.org.uk.
9. Quoted in CSIE’s (2002) report, Social
and educational justice: the human rights framework for inclusion, p.11.
10. For example, those with autism,
‘high level support needs’ or ‘severe communication difficulties’.
11. This is discussed more fully in
CSIE’s (2002) report Social and educational justice: the human rights framework
for inclusion.
12. See Tomasevski, K. (2003), Education
Denied: Costs and Remedies (London: Zed Books), pp.151-4.
13. Keynote address to the CSIE Conference
‘Developing inclusive education: Supporting human rights in local mainstream
schools’, 19 May 2004, available at http://inclusion.org.uk.
CHILDREN's
RIGTHS ALLIANCE FOR ENGLAND
Article 17
Education
SEE CSIE TEXT, PAGES 5-6
1. States Parties recognize the right of all persons with disabilities to
education. With a view to achieving this right progressively and on the
basis of equal opportunity, the education of children with disabilities
shall be directed to:
(a) The full development of the human potential and sense of dignity and
self-worth, and the strengthening of respect for human rights, fundamental
freedoms and human diversity;
(b) Enabling all persons with disabilities to participate effectively in
a free society;
(c) The development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical
abilities to their fullest potential;
(d) Taking into account the best interests of the child, in particular by
individualizing education plans.
2. In realizing this right, States Parties shall ensure:
(a) That all persons with disabilities can choose inclusive and accessible
education in their own community (including access to early childhood and
pre-school education);
(b) The provision of required support, including the specialized training
of teachers, school counsellors and psychologists, an accessible curriculum,
an accessible teaching medium and technologies, alternative and augmentative
communication modes, alternative learning strategies, an accessible physical
environment, or other reasonable accommodations to ensure the full participation
of students with disabilities;
(c) That no child with disabilities is excluded from free and compulsory
primary education on account of their disability.
3. States Parties shall ensure that where the general education system does
not adequately meet the needs of persons with disabilities special and alternative
forms of learning should be made available. Any such special and alternative
forms of learning should:
(a) Reflect the same standards and objectives provided in the general education
system;
(b) Be provided in such a manner as to allow children with disabilities
to participate in the general education system to the maximum extent possible;
(c) Allow a free and informed choice between general and special systems;
(d) In no way limit the duty of States Parties to continue to strive to
meet the needs of students with disabilities in the general education system.
4. States Parties shall ensure that children with sensory disabilities may
choose to be taught sign language or Braille, as appropriate, and to receive
the curriculum in sign language or Braille. States Parties shall take appropriate
measures to ensure quality education to students with sensory disabilities
by ensuring the employment of teachers who are fluent in sign language or
Braille.
5. States Parties shall ensure that persons with disabilities may access
general tertiary education, vocational training, adult education and lifelong
learning on an equal basis with others. To that end, States Parties shall
render appropriate assistance to persons with disabilities.
INTERNATIONAL DISABILITY CAUCUS
Draft Article 17: Education
1. STATES PARTIES SHALL recognize the right to quality education of all
girls, boys, young people, women and men with disabilities.
2. With a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of
equal opportunity for all, the education of people with disabilities shall
aim to:
a) Build a society that is inclusive to all persons, including all girls,
boys, young people, women and men with disabilities;
b) Recognize the full development of the human potential and sense of dignity
and self worth, and the strengthening of respect for human rights, fundamental
freedoms and human diversity;
c) Enable all persons with disabilities to participate fully and effectively
in a free and inclusive society;
d) Support the development of the individual's personality, talents and
abilities to his or her fullest potential;
e) Recognize and supporting individual learning needs;
3. STATES PARTIES SHALL ensure that:
a) all (girls, boys, young people, women and men) with disabilities have
access to inclusive and accessible education in their own community, including
access to early childhood intervention and pre-school education;
b) the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities, through
the provision of required support, including the specialized training of
teachers and other educational means and staff, pre- and in-service training
of regular, specialized and support teachers, an accessible curriculum,
accessible teaching medium and materials, appropriate assistive devices,
alternative and augmentative communication means and modes, sign language,
alternative learning strategies, universally accessible built environment
or other reasonable accommodations;
c) no child with disabilities is excluded from free and compulsory primary
education on account of his or her disability;
d) all persons with disabilities shall have access to secondary education,
vocational training, higher education, adult education and lifelong learning
on an equal basis with all others, and to that end appropriate assistance
and reasonable accommodation needs to be provided;
e) no person with disabilities shall be required to undergo any medical
treatment or intervention to correct, improve or alleviate any impairment,
or any actual or perceived disability, as a condition of inclusive and full
quality education;
f) Students with disabilities are explicitly included in all national education
and implementation plans, and that the same standards, objectives and curriculum
are provided for persons with disabilities as for all other students in
the general education system;
4. STATES PARTIES SHALL ensure quality education for deaf, deafblind, blind,
and partially sighted children and young persons:
a) Deaf and deafblind children and young persons have the right to receive
education in their own language, in their own groups and to become bilingual
in sign language and their national spoken and written language, learn additional
foreign languages, both signed and spoken/written, have legislative, administrative,
political and other measures taken by States’ Parties to provide quality
education using sign language, thereby ensuring the employment of deaf teachers
and hearing teachers who are fluent in sign language;
b) Blind, partially sighted and deafblind children and young persons, have
the right to receive education in special schools or special classes for
blind, partially sighted or deafblind children, to gain literacy skills,
and to study a wide curriculum, including mathematics, geography and chemistry,
with learning materials in Braille and/or through alternative formats including
assistive devises, be provided with daily life skills and mobility training
parallel with the class room education, in order to gain full independence
and freedom, to receive an education provided by teachers with competence
to teach communication skills and who have received training relevant to
the specific needs of blind, partially sighted and deafblind children and
young persons.
LANDMINE
SURVIVORS NETWORK
Draft Article 17 – EDUCATION
SYNTHESIS OF PROPOSALS
1. States Parties recognise the right of all persons with disabilities to
education at all stages of life and all educational levels and services.
The education of persons with disabilities shall be directed to:
(a) the full development of the human potential and sense of dignity and
self worth, and the strengthening of respect for human rights, fundamental
freedoms and human diversity;
(b) enabling all persons with disabilities to participate effectively and
equitably in a free and inclusive society; and
(c) the development of persons with disabilities’ personalities, talents
and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential.
2. In realising this right, States Parties shall ensure:
(a) that persons with disabilities can avail themselves of inclusive and
accessible education (including equal access to early childhood and preschool
education) and that such education shall be provided to the maximum extent
possible in the communities in which they live;
(b) appropriate support including specialized training for teachers and
other staff, an accessible curriculum, accessible teaching medium and technologies,
a variety of means of communication, alternative learning strategies, accessible
physical environment, or other reasonable accommodations to ensure the full
participation of students with disabilities; and
(c) That no child with disabilities is excluded from free and compulsory
primary education on account of their disability.
3. Where the general education system does not yet adequately meet the rights
and 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:
(a) 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 and rights
of persons with disabilities;
(b) be provided in such a manner to allow persons with disabilities to participate
in the general education system to the maximum extent possible;
(c) allow a free and informed choice between general and alternative systems;
and
(d) in no way limit the duty of States Parties to continue to strive to
meet the needs of students with disabilities in the general education system.
4. States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that persons
with disabilities may choose to be taught using a variety of means of communication,
including sign language, Braille and other means of communication, and shall
work to ensure quality education to students with disabilities by ensuring
that teachers are able to use different means of communication.
5. States Parties shall ensure that persons with disabilities may access
general secondary education, tertiary education, vocational training, adult
education and lifelong learning on an equal basis with others. To that end,
States Parties shall ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided.
COMMENTS
Draft Article 17 is of particular importance given that people with disabilities
frequently find themselves forced into educational settings not of their
choosing and/or often not appropriate to their actual needs or consistent
with their rights. As a result, people with disabilities are often limited
in their opportunities to develop their full potential as individuals and
to participate fully in society.
Draft Article 17(1) has been amended to include a reference to “all stages
of life and all educational settings and services,” in recognition that
the article has application and relevance for all people with disabilities,
not merely children. (Costa Rica, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago) Consistent
with this approach, references to children in the article have, where appropriate,
been replaced with references to “persons with disabilities,” (Russian Federation,
Sierra Leone, Argentina, Bahrain), and former Draft Article 17(1)(d) has
been deleted, given that the best interests of the child is addressed elsewhere
in the Convention and is not relevant to all people with disabilities in
educational settings. (New Zealand) The reference to progressive realization
found in the Working Group Draft Text, has also been removed because the
relationship of the concept of progressive realization to the treaty is
already addressed in Draft Article 4 (General Obligations) and a reference
here could serve to unduly weaken the application of the provisions. (Sierra
Leone, EU, Kenya, Thailand, Uganda)
Draft Article 17(1)(b) has been amended to incorporate concepts of equality
(South Africa) and inclusiveness (Mexico), which are consistent with the
objectives and principles of the Convention.
Draft Article 17(2)(a) has been altered in accordance with the proposition
that concepts of availability and location of inclusive and accessible education
should be more clearly addressed. (EU, Costa Rica) Draft Article 17(2)(b)
adopts the proposal to refer to specialized training of teachers and other
support staff in more general terms, thus removing the restrictive listing
of staff found in the Working Group Draft Text. (EU) The provision has also
been amended to replace the reference to “alternative and augmentative communication
modes” with broader language now found in Draft Article 13 (Freedom of Expression).
Draft Article 17(3) establishes the relationship between general/inclusive
education approaches, and alternative education strategies, and retains
the approach of maintaining choice. (EU, Thailand, Brazil) The language
here is reflective of the proposal (EU) which incorporates the word “yet”
to ensure that governments strive to provide inclusive education, whilst
preserving the right for people with disabilities to choose alternative
education settings where they decide that such settings would be preferable.
Draft Article 17(3)(a) incorporates the proposal (EU) to have the reference
to standards for such alternative education settings be more consistent
with standards found in the UNSR, Rule 6, and also includes an amendment
referring to the “rights” as well as “needs” of persons with disabilities.
Draft Article 17(4) originally referenced people with specific kinds of
disabilities, and it was felt by some members of the Ad Hoc Committee (South
Africa) that such an approach was inappropriate in an article intended to
address all people with disabilities. The language now reflected in Draft
Article 17(4) is a combination of proposals (EU and Costa Rica), which does
not mention specific types of impairment, but instead refers to the broader
issue of being able to choose a “variety of means of communication” (language
consistent with Draft Article 13), with important examples (such as sign
language and Braille) referenced in a non-exclusive list.
Draft Article 17(5) incorporates the proposal to reference secondary education
(EU, Thailand) which, it was felt, had not received appropriate inclusion
elsewhere in the article. The last sentence has also been amended to expressly
reference “reasonable accommodation” (EU, New Zealand), as it was felt by
some that “appropriate assistance” was unclear.
RESCARE
Draft Proposal UN Disability Convention Article 17 (Education)
In representing thousands of families having a child with severe learning
disabilities we welcome Article 17 (Education) in its recognising as it
does the rights of parents to choose a special school as best suited to
meeting the educational and care needs of their severely handicapped son
or daughter.
We strongly object to that right to choose by such parents being withdrawn
from Article 17 as suggested by the Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education,
Bristol, UK (CSIE), a right to choose which is afforded all other parents.
It is not a question of one type of educational process versus another but
a comprehensive service with each area of specialised expertise having a
part to play with the quality of outcome being the ultimate criteria not
the process.
As our Department for Education and Skills (DfES) confirmed 25th July 2002
“Inclusion is not an agenda for the closure of special schools”.
Our Prime Minister Tony Blair 7th July 2004 said “I agree that some children’s
needs are obviously best met in special schools. Certainly the purpose of
any policy of inclusion is neither to abolish special schools nor to take
children out of an appropriate environment, it is to ensure that if those
children are able to be in mainstream schooling, they can be. I agree that
it should not lead to a situation whereby children for whom it is not appropriate
to be in mainstream schooling have the possibility of a special school”.
The right of choice of schools for their children is a policy expressly
meant for all parents. It must not be denied to some on the basis of the
CSIE conclusions. Though perhaps well intended these are misplaced and can
only be considered an experiment in social engineering using “inclusion”
as the ideological inducement in what is a total misrepresentation of Government
policy for those thousands of parents whose children have educational and
care needs requiring specialist input in an environment conclusive to such
a delivery.
We hope that on behalf of such caring parents and their children our submission
will lead to the retention of your Clause 17 as originally and rightly conceived.
WORKING MEETING OF NGOs FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITY FROM UKRAINE, RUSSIA, BELARUS & MOLDOVA
Article 17
Education
Issue 1 should be complimented with one more sub-issue (c):
“1. States Parties recognize the right of all persons with disabilities
to education. With a view to achieving this right and on the basis of equal
opportunity, the education of with disabilities shall be directed to
(c) preparing for independent supported living.
Issue 3, sub issue (a) after the words: “Reflect the same standards and
objectives provided in the general education system” add “still, educational
system should be based on differentiated and individual approach and oriented
towards individual training needs”.
Issue 4, after: States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure
quality education to persons with sensory disabilities by the employment
of teachers who are fluent in sign language or Braille” to add: “ and persons
with intellectual disabilities by employment of special educationists (or
correctional pedagogues as they are known in CIS countries), developmental
psychologists, speech and physical therapists and others.
WORLD FEDERATION OF THE DEAF
Draft Article 17: Education
3. b) the full and effective participation of persons with disabilities,
through the provision of required support, including the specialized training
of teachers and other educational means and staff, pre- and in-service training
of regular, specialized and support teachers, an accessible curriculum,
accessible teaching medium and materials, appropriate assistive devices,
alternative and augmentative communication means and modes, sign language,
alternative learning strategies, universally accessible built environment
or other reasonable accommodations;
4. a) Deaf and deafblind children and young persons have the right to receive
education in their own language, in their own groups and to become bilingual
in sign language and their national spoken and written language, learn additional
foreign languages, both signed and spoken/written, have legislative, administrative,
political and other measures taken by States’ Parties to provide quality
education using sign language, thereby ensuring the employment of deaf teachers
and hearing teachers who are fluent in sign language