Comments, proposals and amendments submitted electronically

UNESCO STATEMENT ON EDUCATION ARTICLE 17

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, distinguished delegates. On behalf of UNESCO, I wish to thank the Chair for giving us the opportunity to address this Ad Hoc Committee. UNESCO is deeply committed to ensuring the success of this Convention and will work diligently with our partners in promoting the right to education for persons with disabilities.

UNESCO wishes to commend member states, IDA and the International Disability Caucus all of whom have been working extensively on strengthening the education article in terms of promoting inclusion.

UNESCO supports efforts to strengthen the Working Group text, as promoting the right to education for persons with disabilities is essential to achieving the Education for All goal number 2 of “complete free and compulsory primary education of good quality by 2015”.
We thus welcome the numerous proposals of adding the word “quality” as it is consistent with the Salamanca Declaration, as pointed out by Chile, as well as with the language of the EFA goals.

We greatly appreciate the Australian text promoting an inclusive education system, however suggest maintaining the formulation of ‘child’ from the WG text as the denotation ‘student’ throughout the text could effectively exclude “out of school” children. UNESCO wishes to stress the importance of providing a clear reference to children in this article as it clarifies the obligation of states and reinforces their reporting practices, in terms of education to the CRC and an eventual monitoring mechanism for this Convention. In turn, appropriate language can be incorporated to indicate that the right to education extends to all persons, youth and adults.

UNESCO defines inclusion in education as a process of addressing and responding to the diversity of learners by increasing participation in learning and reducing exclusion within and from education. The objective is to support education for all, with special emphasis on removing barriers to participation, as South Africa effectively pointed out, for children with disabilities and out-of-school children.

The overall goal, is a school, which adapts to the needs of all learners and where all children are participating and treated equally – it is thus imperative that the word ALL, effectively includes children with disabilities.

Article 17 is particularly pertinent to providing UNESCO with a comprehensive legal instrument to work with member states in order to ensure that children with disabilities are planned for in National Education Plans.

It is increasingly evident that if we are to reach the Education for All goals, concerted efforts need to be made to guarantee that children with disabilities are provided access to quality education in the regular school system.

Toward this end, UNESCO has a number of so-called Flagships, nine of which are intended to further EFA goals through partnerships with the international community and members of civil society.

This Convention would serve to reinforce the EFA flagship initiative on the Right to Education for Persons with Disabilities: Towards Inclusion, which includes membership from IDA organizations and various UN agencies. The Flagship seeks to ensure that children with disabilities are given the same right to education, as for all other children.

There is an estimated 140 million children out of school, a large majority of them are children with disabilities and over 57%, according the 2005 EFA Global Monitoring Report, are girls. Coupled with this alarming fact is the increased number of illiterate individuals in the world – estimated at 860 million people. The undeniable link between poverty and education cannot be overlooked.

We also wish to underscore the importance of education as an empowerment right and prerequisite towards exercising and achieving other civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. In this regard, we support Chile’s initial suggestion to omit progressive realization as it would strengthen the Working Group text.

UNESCO would like to highlight that promoting inclusion in education also implies allowing for choice (as stipulated in article 13 of the ICESCR) for groups such as the deaf, blind and deaf-blind and we also support the stance of Thailand indicating that inclusiveness does not mean supporting one model, but that the entire system be inclusive.

Toward this end, we likewise support the language of the EU proposal, which refers to appropriate “effective alternative forms of education” in meeting these educational needs and in the interest of promoting full inclusion. Such language is consistent with this important principle of choice. Furthermore, we fully support adding the principle of non-discrimination to the chapeau, as it stresses the key findings of the former Special Rapporteur on the right to education, who identified discrimination as a major barrier to achieving the right to education. It is likewise consistent with the 1960 UNESCO Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination in Education.

I have five final points to highlight in relation to our discussion. I will try to be brief.

First is that the obligation to provide primary education for all is one of the rare provisions which, according to General Comment on this article, is an immediate duty for all States parties given that the wording of article 13 (2) of the ICESCR provides that, “States parties are obliged to prioritize the introduction of compulsory, free primary education”. 25/ This interpretation of article 13 (2) is reinforced by the priority accorded to primary education in article 14.

Second, in terms of the suggestion to substitute basic for primary, we wish to highlight that primary education is not synonymous with basic education although there is close correspondence between the two. In this regard, the General Comment recognises that: "Primary education is the most important component of basic education.

Third, we strongly echo Costa Rica’s call for highlighting human rights education (as also supported in Israel’s suggestion), particularly in light of UNESCO’s cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which led to the adoption of a World Programme for Human Rights Education following the Decade for Human Rights Education.

Fourth, we wish to recognize ILO’s efforts to promote vocational training, as such measures provide essential link between education and effective inclusion in society.

Finally we wish support the concerns raised by IDA members regarding institutionalization of persons with disabilities as such measures are incompatible with promoting their right to education.

UNESCO looks forward to seeing the prompt adoption and implementation of this Convention, which will enable the international community to realize our EFA goals by 2015.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Non-governmental Organizations

CENTER FOR STUDIES ON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

BRIEFING (1) FROM THE CENTRE FOR STUDIES ON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION (CSIE) July 2005

Children before choice

Amendments to end segregated education

Article 17 of the new Disability Convention should be the key to ending segregated education for disabled children and making properly supported and adapted inclusive education a right for every child. However, there is a danger that this unprecedented opportunity for justice and social progress could be lost if urgent amendments are not made focusing Governments’ obligations firmly on developing inclusive education for all and working towards ending segregation in education on the grounds of disability.

CSIE’s detailed arguments for removing the choice of segregated ‘special’ education from the Convention as proposed in the current draft by the Working Group to the Ad Hoc Committee have been presented in earlier briefings and are available at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahcngocon.htm under NGO documents for the third, fourth and fifth sessions of the Committee and also on the CSIE website at http://inclusion.uwe.ac.uk/csie/un-draft-convention-alert.htm. These arguments take account of research findings on the damage to individuals and society caused by segregation and the feasibility of developing education for all which removes barriers to participation and individualises learning through necessary supports and adjustments in mainstream settings. The CSIE arguments also demonstrate why the Convention must avoid putting Governments in the self-defeating position of having to provide incompatible systems of both separate ‘special’ and inclusive education. Some examples of inclusive education from around the world are provided in CSIE Briefing (2) July 2005, ‘A Worldwide Movement’.

Such flexible, diverse and restructured education – inclusive education – upholds the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and reflects the right to education in terms of the responsibilities of Governments to make education ‘available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable’ to each and every child, as developed by Katarina Tomasevski, Special Rapporteur on Education 1998-2004, and adopted by the UN.

Children First

In this latest briefing, CSIE argues that values and principles promoting self-determination and autonomy create tensions in the current drafting of Article 17 and explains why it is necessary to make amendments which put children’s rights first and remove choice of separate ‘special’ schooling. Some adverse effects of the UK Government promoting both inclusive and separate ‘special’ education, which CSIE hopes might be prevented internationally by amending Article 17 in line with children’s rights, are also highlighted.

Taking into account the history of discrimination faced by disabled people, there is much support to enshrine self-determination and individual autonomy, including the freedom to make one’s own choices, as a basis for the Convention. However, the issue of autonomy for children is different. Although children have a right to express their views and have them taken into account, it is parents who have a right to choice in the education of their children. Parents’ right to choice in education for their children already exists in a number of human rights instruments, although it is not recognised in the education articles (28 and 29) of the CRC. CSIE can see no reason why parents’ existing rights cannot be upheld in the kind of properly supported and adapted inclusive education we seek to have promoted by the Convention. What we disagree with is attempting to justify the segregation of children on the grounds of disability into separate ‘special’ schools on the basis of principles of autonomy and choice. The reasons why we believe such an interpretation is not acceptable under a human rights framework are set out below.

Autonomy is not absolute

Individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices is listed among the fundamental principles of the draft Disability Convention under Article 2. It is CSIE’s view that this cannot indicate absolute, individual free choice in all matters. Rather it indicates a right to autonomy and self-determination in the context of Governments’ responsibilities to ensure that all people are able to enjoy economic, social, political, civil and cultural rights. Autonomy inevitably has its limits. Choice is not free and is curtailed when it violates rights. For example, rights to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and from all forms of violence (as in draft articles 11 and 12 of the new Convention) are unequivocally interpreted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child as prohibiting corporal punishment of children in all settings, despite the religious, cultural and personal arguments being made in many countries supporting its use, including appeals to the right to privacy and family life (draft article 14 in the new Convention).

Parents’ choice in education is not free

In the same way, under a human rights framework, parents’ choice in relation to their children’s education is understood not as a free choice but one that must be made in the context of the responsibility to respect the human rights of children and within the constraints of standards set by Governments which should reflect the human rights treaties they have ratified. The rationale for parental choice in education can be traced to efforts to prevent state monopoly of education and the indoctrination of children, particularly following the Second World War. For this reason it is usually associated with the content rather than the organisation of education and with parents’ ‘philosophical and religious convictions’. In any conflict between parental choice and the best interests of the child, the rights of the child prevail and Governments have to ensure that children are protected.

Repercussions of choice in England

In England, since the Government embarked on its latest, so-called inclusion policy in 2004 which included a ten year inclusion development programme for schools, it has promoted incompatible, parallel systems of separate ‘special’ education and inclusive education in the name of parents’ choice. Two years into the programme, confusion threatens to impede inclusive development and ongoing segregation is not only supported but guaranteed for the long term under current legislation. Official inspections and surveys show that, although improving, most schools are struggling to replicate the inclusive practice of a minority of trailblazers and that the movement of pupils from separate ‘special’ schools has virtually come to a halt. The Government faces competing demands: to uphold rights, continue enhancing mainstream schools to become more inclusive and phase out separate ‘special’ schools, AND to maintain and even re-open them to cater for families who complain of the inadequacies of the mainstream as it currently stands and see no other alternative to their present problems. Children who it is intended should benefit from inclusive education are caught in a situation akin to a lottery where their chances of receiving it depend on regional policy, geography, social class and the nature of their impairments. Choice for all in state provided education has proved an illusion for many and children’s rights have been denied.

Plea to the International Community

CSIE’s views on the need for UK Government to review its inclusion policy to support further inclusive development and phase out separate ‘special’ schools are well known in the UK (and are available at http://inclusion.uwe.ac.uk/csie/csiehome.htm and http://2020campaign.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk).

We now urge the international community to set a lead by removing choice of separate ‘special’ schooling from Article 17 in the Disability Convention and obliging Governments to develop properly supported and adapted inclusive education for all. Choice by adults of segregated ‘special’ schooling for children has no place in a human rights convention. Children’s rights to properly supported and adapted inclusive education must be the priority.

BRIEFING (2) FROM THE CENTRE FOR STUDIES ON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION (CSIE) July 2005

Ending segregation and developing inclusive education
– A WORLDWIDE MOVEMENT

‘The rights of students with disabilities to be educated in their local mainstream school is becoming more and more accepted in most countries and many reforms are being put in place to achieve this goal. Further, there is no reason to segregate disabled students in public education systems. Instead education systems need to be reconsidered to meet the needs of all students.’ (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, 1999)

Examples of inclusive education from countries across the world are available on the websites of the following organisations:

1. Centre for Special Needs and Studies in Inclusive Education (www.ied.edu.hk/csnsie) Hong Kong, an organisation committed to implementing inclusive education through local applied research and case studies on inclusive practices. Includes the following papers:

• ‘Integration in Hong Kong: where are we now and what do we need to do? A review of the Hong Kong Government’s Pilot Project’ (1999). A discussion paper on the Government’s 2 year Pilot Project on Integration set up in 1997, by the end of which 48 pupils were included in 7 primary and 2 secondary schools; includes information based on interviews with students.

• ‘The Education of Children with Special Needs: Barriers and Opportunities in Central and Eastern Europe’ (www.ied.edu.hk/csnsie/info/res2.pdf), by Mel Ainscow and Memmenasha Haile-Giorgis, published by UNICEF. Includes a discussion of barriers and possible ways forward, and discussion of progress towards inclusion in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, Slovenia, Romania, Latvia and Lithuania.

2. Disability World (www.disabilityworld.org), a web-zine dedicated to the exchange of information and research about the international independent living movement of people with disabilities. Articles on inclusive education around the world include:

• ‘The Process of Inclusion in Brazil and in Latin America’ (2000) (www.disabilityworld.org/March2000/English/VamprepaperINCLUSIONENG.htm), by Maria Amelia Vampre Xavier

• ‘UNESCO supports an inclusion development project in Nicaraguan schools’ (www.disabilityworld.org/06-08_02/children/nicaragua.shtml)

• ‘Russia: Young disabled activists tackle attitudes in mainstream schools’ (www.disabilityworld.org/12-02_05/children/russia.shtml), by Denise Roza+

3. International Disability and Development Consortium (IDDC) (www.iddc.org.uk/), a group of 16 international NGOs supporting inclusive disability and development work in over 100 countries globally. Examples of inclusive education developments include:

• ‘Disability development in education in the urban community: A study in education for children with disability’ (2001) (www.iddc.org.uk/dis_dev/strategies/research_berdo.pdf), by Md. Saidul Huq of BERDO (Blind Education and Rehabilitation Development Organisation), which looks at how to include disabled children in mainstream schooling in Bangladesh. Includes case study of a visually impaired girl.

• ‘A critical review of the literature relating to the education of disabled children in developing countries’ (www.iddc.org.uk/dis_dev/strategies/critical_review.doc) (1994), by Sue Stubbs. An overview of issues arising when westerners begin to research disability in ‘developing’ countries, with a particular focus on Africa.

4. Enabling Education Network (EENET) (www.eenet.org.uk), an information-sharing network aimed at supporting and promoting the inclusion of marginalised groups in education worldwide. The website contains information on EENET’s action learning project, funded by the UK Department for International Development, documenting experiences of promoting inclusive education in communities in Zambia and Tanzania (www.eenet.org.uk/action/action.shtml) and extensive information on inclusion of deaf learners (www.eenet.org.uk/deaf/deafness.shtml). Examples of inclusion across the world include:

• ‘Researching our Experience’ (2003) (www.eenet.org.uk/action/rsrching_experience.pdf). A collection of writings by teachers from schools in Zambia including a chapter on inclusion of disabled students in mainstream education, with case studies. Examples relate to learning difficulties; communication between hearing and hearing impaired children; physical disability.

• ‘Learning from Difference: Understanding community initiatives to improve access to education’ (2003) (www.eenet.org.uk/action/learning_from_diff_yes.pdf). Accounts of inclusive education at 19 primary schools in Tanzania and Zambia. Primary schools in Tanzania include a residential special school for physically disabled children offering its resources and expertise to the inclusion initiatives, a primary school with a special unit, and a primary school resource base for itinerant teachers of visually impaired children. In Zambia, two schools have special units attached, one for deaf children and the other for children with learning difficulties.
• ‘Including deaf learners in Zambia’ (www.eenet.org.uk/deaf/inclusion_deaf_learners.shtml).

• ‘Case Study: Papua New Guinea – The provision for children with hearing impairment and deafness in an “inclusive” system’ (www.eenet.org.uk/deaf/incdeafrep/pngsian.shtml), by Sian Tesni.

• ‘Inclusion and Deafness – Families as essential stakeholders’ (www.eenet.org.uk/deaf/incdeafrep/elina.shtml), by Elina Lehtomaki.

• ‘International experience in including children with disabilities in ordinary schools’ (www.eenet.org.uk/theory_practice/internat_exp.shtml), by Prof. Peter Mittler, Manchester, England. A summary of the experiences of implementation of inclusive policies, focusing on countries in the Middle East and North Africa and other French or Arabic speaking countries. Draws heavily on UNESCO documents. Countries included are Uganda, Lesotho, Vietnam, Lao, Jordan, Palestine, Morocco, Egypt and Yemen. Also looks at obstacles to inclusion and how these might be overcome, with particular reference to Brazil, India and South Africa. Includes a useful summary of UNESCO resources.

• ‘Inclusion and deafness’ (www.eenet.org.uk/deaf/incdeafrep/repindex.shtml). Report of a seminar at the University of Manchester in 1999, including papers on Uganda, China, Papua New Guinea and Afghanistan.

• ‘Challenging the exclusion of blind students in Rwanda’ (www.eenet.org.uk/newsletters/news7/page4.shtml), by Evariste Karangwa, reporting on the inclusion of visually impaired and blind students in their local secondary school.

• ‘Including deafblind children’ (www.eenet.org.uk/newsletters/news8/page13.shtml), by Sumitra Mishra and Ben Simms, on the involvement of Sense International in Brazil, Romania, India and Bolivia.

• ‘Developing learning and participation in countries of the South – the role of an Index for Inclusion’ (2001, revised 2005), by Tony Booth and Kristine Black-Hawkins (soon to be available on EENET’s website, but until then available via email at tjb4@canterbury.ac.uk). The Index for Inclusion, a tool to support inclusive development in schools written by Tony Booth and Mel Ainscow and published by the Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE), has been used in many countries worldwide. This paper discusses its use in India (Mumbai and Chennai), Brazil and South Africa.

There are other articles on experiences in the UK, Macedonia, Ethiopia, South Asia, India, Australia and Lesotho, and a number of useful, short articles in EENET’s latest newsletter, June 2005 (www.eenet.org.uk/newsletters/news9/eenet_news9.pdf).

5. Inclusion International (www.inclusion-international.org/en/), a global federation of family-based organisations advocating for the human rights of people with intellectual disabilities and their families. One of the priority areas is inclusive education. Key articles include:

• ‘The right to education for persons with disabilities: Towards inclusion – conceptual paper’ (2004) (www.inclusion-international.org/site_uploads/1113910819151774467.pdf). Contains some examples of recent and current initiatives in Brazil, Bosnia & Herzegovina, South Africa and Uganda, as well as a discussion of the major issues and proposals for a practical framework for action.

6. UNESCO (www.unesco.org). Inclusive education is one of UNESCO’s ‘key concepts’, and the website contains a wealth of examples of inclusive education worldwide, including the following:

• ‘Including the excluded: Meeting diversity in education – Example from Romania’ (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001231/123165eo.pdf) (children with HIV, children with disabilities, Roma children).

• ‘Including the excluded: Meeting diversity in education – Example from Uganda’ (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001226/122613eo.pdf) (children affected by armed conflict, children with special educational needs)

• ‘Students with disabilities in regular schools: Welcoming schools’ (1999) (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001184/118455eo.pdf). Examples from Ghana, Palestine, Peru (physical disability), Uganda (visual impairments), South Africa (hearing impairment), Mongolia, Germany (Down’s syndrome, cerebral palsy), Hungary (hearing impairment), Australia (Down’s syndrome), China (visual impairment, blind), Portugal, India (visual impairment), Lesotho, Chile (Down’s syndrome, motor impairment, special educational needs), Canada (visual impairment and others).

• ‘Inclusion in Education: The Participation of Disabled Learners’ (2001) (http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=28460&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html), by James Lynch. A thematic analysis of country reports relating to the Education for All 2000 assessment of progress, interspersed with examples of instructive practice from across the world which highlight barriers and how they might be overcome. Includes brief examples from Italy, Switzerland, South Africa (deaf child), Ireland, Vietnam (physical disabilities), Madagascar, China (visual impairments), India, Romania, Uganda, Philippines (hearing impaired and blind), South Africa, Ireland, Lesotho, Madagascar, Portugal, Brazil, Kenya (blind and visually impaired), Mexico. Detailed individual country reports are available at http://www2.unesco.org/wef/countryreports/home.html.

• ‘First steps – stories on inclusion in early childhood education’ (1997) (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001102/110238eo.pdf). Includes examples from Australia (ethnicity issues and disabilities), Chile, Denmark (severe disabilities), France, Greece (visually impaired), Guyana, India, Lao (children with disabilities in mainstream but deaf and blind in separate school), Lebanon, Mauritius, Portugal (socially disadvantaged children), South Africa, US.

• ‘Making it happen: Examples of good practice in special needs education and community-based programmes’ (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000968/096884ev.pdf). Examples from Austria, China (mild learning difficulties), Ghana, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Jordan (deaf, learning difficulties), Holy Land (institute for the deaf role in community based rehabilitation), Netherlands (children with Down’s syndrome), Norway, and a separate chapter on international initiatives for deaf education in developing countries.

8. UNICEF (www.unicef.org). Examples of inclusive education from around the world include:

• ‘Disabled children join mainstream’ (www.unicef.org/bhutan/disable.htm) – Bhutan

• ‘Government of India announces plan to make education disabled-friendly by 2020’ (www.unicef.org/india/media_610.htm)

• ‘Childhood under threat’ at www.unicef.org/uzbekistan/protection_1696.html) – the establishment of a Resource Centre on Inclusive Education in Uzbekistan

• ‘External Evaluation of the Project Special Classrooms for Children with Disabilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1997-2000’ (www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/files/BHG_2000_007.pdf) (2000), by Martyn Rouse et al.

• Education Update vol. 2, issue 4, October 1999 (www.unicef.org/girlseducation/files/vol2disabileng.pdf) is concerned children with disabilities and includes a number of articles on inclusive developments across the world, including in Greece (visually impaired); Brazil, Armenia, Cote d’Ivoire, China (visually impaired) Jamaica.

9. World Bank (www.worldbank.org/disability)

• ‘Inclusive Education – Early Lessons Learned from Senegal’ (http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/voddocs/494/967/senegal.doc) (2003), by Carlton Aslett-Rydberg. Reports on a study in Senegal funded by the Nordic Development Fund as part of the Quality Education for All Programme, led by the World Bank. Part of the development of inclusive education in Senegal, looking at how to build on existing resources within the country.

• ‘Disability and Education: Toward an Inclusive Approach’ (www.iadb.org/sds/doc/Rev2bEditedDisability%2DEducationPorter.pdf), by Gordon Porter of the Inter-American Development Bank, working paper. Includes a section on country experiences – looks at successful inclusive education developments in Jamaica (slow learners) and Brazil (mental disabilities), and includes a chapter on the conditions for success. These two countries also feature in ‘Disability and Inclusive Education: A paper prepared for the Inter-American Development Bank’, 2001, by Gordon L. Porter. Available via Inclusion International website (www.inclusion-international.org/site_uploads/111900800114467256.pdf).

• ‘Inclusive Education: An EFA Strategy for All Children’ (http://www1.worldbank.org/education/pdf/InclusiveEdu_efa_strategy_for_children.pdf) (2004), by Susan Peters of Michigan State University. Includes ‘best practice’ examples from the US, Canada, Europe and other OECD countries and a chapter on lessons that can be learned from experiences in countries of the South (particularly in relation to physical impairments, blindness, deafness and cognitive impairments). Also contains a useful section on sources for information on disability, inclusive education and human rights.

The Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education (CSIE) was set up in 1982 to promote the education of disabled and non-disabled children together in mainstream schools and to end the practice of educating disabled children separately in ‘special’ schools.
CSIE, NEW REDLAND, FRENCHAY CAMPUS, COLDHARBOUR LANE, BRISTOL BS16 1QU, UK
TEL: +44 (0)117 328 4007. EMAIL: LINDA SHAW, CO-DIRECTOR AT lindashaw@blueyonder.co.uk.

INTERNATIONAL DISABILITY CAUCUS

- Information sheet
Article 17 Education

This Article has two sections.

Section 1 sets out the scope of the provision that is required for children and adults with disabilities to achieve equality of opportunity in education and training. It is underpinned by the provisions of -

* The Covenant on the rights of the child (Article 23 clauses 3 and 4, Article 28 paragraph 1, Article 29 paragraph 1);
* The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 13, paragraph 1, 2, and Article 14).

IDC clause 1(d), relating to the right to learn and enjoy cultures and languages, is particularly important for deaf and deafblind children and adults. Learning sign languages and other means and modes of communication is an essential pre-requisite to participation in the culture of their communities (see also IDC paragraph 2(c)).

Section 2 sets out the measures that IDC considers that States should take to provide the support to children and students with disabilities that are required to enable full benefit to be derived from the provisions of IDC Section 1.

It is not only necessary to ensure that suitable equipment and teaching materials are provided. The educational establishment as well as its teaching methods and curricula, must be designed from conception to implementation to encapsulate the needs of all children and students, including those with disabilities, thereby incorporating the principles of universal design. This is necessary to ensure that the full inclusion of as many disabled children and students as possible is achieved.

IDC paragraph 2(d) draws attention to the need to enable blind, deaf and deafblind children and young persons to have the choice of education in their own groups and settings. IDC considers this is necessary because of the major communication barriers that have to be addressed to enable these children and students to have the opportunity to achieve their full educational potential.
Significant staff skills, educational resources and equipment are required to ensure that a full and balanced curriculum is accessible to children and students with sensory impairments. Not all community schools have the capability to deliver these facilities. Hence the need to provide choice.

- Draft proposal

IDC Draft Article 17
13 July 2005

1. States Parties Shall ensure the right to a quality and inclusive education and training for all girls, boys, young people, women and men with disabilities and through legislation and other necessary measures ensure that:

(a) all children with disabilities have the right to a free and compulsory education, on a basis of equal opportunity with others;

(b) all persons with disabilities have full access to pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary and higher education, vocational training, school-to-work transition, adult education, formal and informal training and life long learning;

(c) all students with disabilities are provided with a meaningful and productive education to reach the full development of talents, abilities, fullest human potential, sense of dignity and self worth, that furthers and fulfil the educational and professional aspirations;

(d) all persons with disabilities have the right to learn and enjoy their own cultures and languages;

(e) no person with disabilities shall, as a condition for accessing education, be required to undergo any medical treatment or intervention to correct, improve or alleviate any perceived impairment, or any actual or perceived disability;

2. State Parties Shall ensure that students with disabilities are included and fully recognized in all educational frameworks, national educational and training policies, implementation plans, standards and programs by;

(a) providing all students with disabilities with required support to classes and schools, including flexible and alternative teaching strategies and methods, appropriate teaching aids and materials, student centred curriculum, testing methods, training of teachers and staff and in pre- and in-service training;

(b) providing appropriate assistive devices, adaptive technology, alternative and augmentative communication means and modes, sign language, tactile sign language, Braille, embossed print, plain texts and other alternative formats, universally and accessible built environment, assistance of all kinds and other accommodations;

(c) offering an adequate early family and pre-school support to children with disabilities, including education in daily life skills and mobility training in parallel with the academic education;

(d) guaranteeing multilingual education for deaf and deafblind students, mainly through the medium of sign language, given by bilingual deaf and hearing teachers who are fluent in sign language and written or/and spoken forms of a state language;

(e) providing blind, deaf and deafblind children and young persons the right to choose education in their own groups and settings, where they shall be provided with the same level of support and standards, consistent with other provisions in this article;

(f) recognize that persons with disabilities and their respective organizations are consulted as experts in developing and implementing of educational, training, life long learning plans and programs, including disability awareness training programs and in teachers training curriculums and policies;

WORLD FEDERATION OF THE DEAF, THE WORLD BLIND UNION AND THE WORLD FEDERATION OF THE DEAF-BLIND

Article 17
Statement on Inclusive Education for Persons who are Deaf, Blind and
Deafblind: The Rationale for Choice in Education

2 August, 2005

To the Officers and Delegates to the United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:

We, as representatives of the World Federation of the Deaf, the World Blind Union and the World Federation of the Deafblind, wish to commend the Ad Hoc Committee and its inclusive processes for ensuring that the final convention represents the ultimate goal we all wish for: independence and self-determination for all the citizens of our global society and support for the diverse needs, abilities and perspectives of people with disabilities.

Summary of Points:

Article 17 focuses on education, one of the most fundamental human rights and needs.
We urge you to support the proposed draft on Article 17, as submitted by IDC. Our major points are:
• We support inclusive, barrier-free quality education for all.
• All people with disabilities have the human right to life, access to information and learning, self-determination, independence, citizenship, employment and community services.
• Education is fundamental to those human rights and freedoms. Inappropriate education or no access to education makes a mockery of those fundamental human rights.
• IDC shares our support for the right of children who are Blind, Deaf and Deaf-Blind to choices in educational settings.
• We support the inclusion of persons with disabilities and their respective organizations in educational planning, implementation and employment at all levels.

Quality Education as a means to Quality Life

Education is a basic necessity for all people. Education is recognised as a primary means for gaining independence, citizenship rights, appropriate employment, economic power and self-determination. We promote and safeguard the right of all people to quality education, starting at birth and throughout life. The United Nation's (UN) position that all people, regardless of origin, gender, age, disability and creed, have the right to a meaningful education.

Like all children, children who are Deaf, Blind or Deafblind must have access to equal and quality education. They have the right to expect that their needs and human, linguistic and educational rights are respected and supported by educational authorities, in full compliance with international policy statements, national legislation and national curricula. These children are born with the same basic capacities for learning and living as all children; they can and should reach their full potential with quality educational programmes and support.

Attendance at a mainstream school does not necessarily result in social inclusion for people who are Blind, Deaf or Deaf-Blind. There is evidence that many of them are socially isolated in mainstream schools. A quality education, regardless of its setting, facilitates the full development of their potential and is the best means of ensuring full participation and inclusion in the community.

The Current Situation

Studies reveal that the enrolment rate and literacy achievement of children who are Deaf, Blind or Deaf-Blind is far below the average for the population at large. Without appropriate education, advancement in society as an independent, employed, contributing citizen becomes problematic. Without a strong educational, languages skills and communication base, it is difficult to succeed in today’s communities and marketplaces and in the world of technology and information.

We take the unequivocal position that there is no excuse for this deplorable gap, since these children display the same range of innate intellectual, social and emotional capacities, as do all children.
Moreover, even in industrialised countries, their rights are violated daily in the majority of current education programmes which do not recognize, respect and meet the different needs of different children, whether it be Sign language, Braille and mobility training, adult role models with the same disability, and so on. For Deaf children, most education programmes fall into the language deprivation category described in theoretical models of education of linguistic minorities. “Language deprivation” for Deaf people means ignoring the use of Sign language as a linguistic human right, a basic communication means, a language of instruction and a school subject. Deaf-Blind people may predominantly depend on their tactile sense and have the right to learn sign language, Braille and mobility skills. Deprivation for Blind children means ignoring their need for mobility training, assistive devices and communication skills.

Children and Choices

We are concerned by the counterproposals at the AHC which attempt to end our right to choice in educational settings under the guise of “including everyone in community schools.” Ending the right to choose learning centres with one’s peers who share the disability would be to create defacto segregation in public schools where children who are Deaf, Blind and Deaf-Blind would be physically present but mentally and socially absent. The low incidence and demographic distribution of Blind, Deaf and Deaf-Blind children means that it is very difficult to establish appropriate or quality education and peer support at a local level between children of similar ages and interests. The application of an ideological approach based only on the provision of education of disabled children at mainstream schools would deny Blind, Deaf and Deaf-Blind people the opportunity to achieve their full potential.

Ineffective education will lead to high costs in post-education rehabilitation training and services. Deprivation of choice should not be one of the tenets of this landmark Convention on Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Education is in itself not a place or a goal, but a continuous, life-long process enabling everyone to acquire multiple skills needed to become an independent, educated, employed, self-actualising, participating and contributing citizen of one’s community and society. Therefore the states must assure quality education and spectrums of settings.

Diversity of views within the Deaf, Blind and Deaf-Blind community

It has been argued that there are diverging views on the appropriateness of specialist or mainstream education for Deaf, Blind and Deafblind people, and that this diversity in some way undermines the call for the right to chose to be educated in specialist settings. We acknowledge the diversity of views of Deaf, Blind and Deaf-Blind people concerning the choice of special or mainstream provision. We believe that choices are necessary because of this diversity. One size can not fit all.

Inclusive Education

Many policy-makers today strongly support full inclusion in education, which they interpret to mean full-scale mainstreaming of all disabled students with all students in regular schools near their homes.
While such a goal may be generally appropriate for many disabled learners who can hear or see and interact with their peers and teachers, we have serious differences regarding implementation of this concept for Deaf, Blind and Deaf-Blind learners.
Full inclusion for a Deaf, Blind and Deafblind learner means a totally accessible, supportive, and student-centred environment. This permits the learner to develop to his/her full educational, social and emotional potential and to participate fully in society as an active, independent and self-determining citizen.
It is clear from the previous paragraphs that there is no one educational solution that is suitable for all deaf, blind and deafblind children. There is a spectrum of different educational needs which have to be met by a corresponding spectrum of educational provision. Some will do best in local mainstream schools; others will require special education to achieve their full potential. That is why the World Federation of the Deaf, the World Blind Union and the World Federation of the DeafBlind and IDC advocate the right for Deaf, Blind and Deafblind people to choose the type of educational setting most appropriate for their individual needs and goals. The application of an ideological approach based only on the provision of education of disabled children at mainstream schools would deny Deaf, Blind and Deafblind people the opportunity to achieve their full potential.

Our request to the Ad Hoc Committee

The World Federation of the Deaf, the World Blind Union and the World Federation of the DeafBlind therefore urges the Ad Hoc Committee to adopt a text based on paragraph 2 (d) prepared by the IDC for Article 17:
c) providing blind, deaf and deafblind children and young persons the right to choose education in their own groups and settings, where they shall be provided with the same level of support and standards, consistent with other provisions in this article;

We thank you and welcome questions from you on how our organizations can work with the UN, UNESCO and States on meeting the educational needs of all learners.

WORLD BLIND UNION

RESOLUTION CONCERNING ARTICLE 17, EDUCATION

We the undersigned are blind delegates and blind representatives of NGO's to the 6th Ad Hoc Committee to develop a UN convention on the Rights of people with disabilities. We believe that a convention on the rights of people with disabilities must recognize and respect the diversity among people with disabilities and address their disability specific needs. For this reason we believe that it is essential throughout the convention and, particularly in Article 17, that braille be recognized as a script unique to the blind but no less important than is the use of print to the sighted. We believe that no discussion of the right to education for people with disabilities can legitimately reflect the needs of all people with disabilities, including blind people, without specific reference to the right of blind and deaf-blind people to have instruction in the reading and writing of braille and access to braille materials. For this reason we call upon all member states to indorse and support specific reference to braille in Article 17 and elsewhere throughout the convention where applicable.

RATIONALE

1. Technology:
It has been suggested that technology will make braille obsolete. Such a position shows a lack of understanding of the role of braille in the lives of blind and deaf-blind people. Blind people use a variety of ways to obtain information including computer speech and braille technology. These technologies do not diminish the importance of braille any more than computer technology generally diminishes the importance of print for sighted people. While computers have opened great amounts of information to blind and deaf-blind people, they do not replace the need to be able to read and write. Speech technology supplements but does not replace the need for braille for blind people and is of limited or no use for most deaf-blind people.

2. Cross-disability Language:
It has been argued that a UN convention on the rights of people with disabilities should not single out specific disability groups but should address the needs of people with disabilities as a whole. Since all people with disabilities should have the right to education, employment, transportation, and so on, some have argued that the convention should adopt inclusive language supporting these rights for all people with disabilities without reference to specific disability types. While people with disabilities share many common barriers to full and equal opportunity in society, individual disability groups have specific needs particular to the disability that must be affirmatively address to insure that these needs are recognized and guaranteed.

3. Low Expectations:
For more than 150 years, braille has given blind and deaf-blind people the ability to read and write, yet, the vast majority of blind people throughout the world do not have access to braille instruction or materials in braille (particularly in the technical fields). A GENERAL reference to the right of people with disabilities assumes reading and writing as the foundation to education. No statement of rights concerning education for non-disabled children would be complete without reading and writing, yet, many blind and deaf-blind children and adults are relegated to substandard education, learning only what they can by sitting in class, listening to their teacher and participating in classroom discussions. General terms such as appropriate or equal education may seem to imply instruction in an appropriate script for reading and writing, however, this has not been the common condition for blind people throughout the world. Society generally assumes that blind and deaf-blind people are unable to learn, unable to work, and unable to participate in family and community life. These attitudes drive the expectations for the education of blind and deaf-blind people. Any discussion of the right to education for blind and deaf-blind people must explicitly acknowledge the right to learn and use a tactile script appropriate to the individual.

WORLD FEDERATION OF THE DEAF

Background

The World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) promotes and safeguards the right of all Deaf people to quality education, starting at birth and throughout life. As for all learners, Deaf children have the same right to education and full access to quality education.

Education is a basic necessity for all people. Education is recognised as a primary means for gaining independence, citizenship rights, appropriate employment, economic power and self-empowerment. WFD supports the United Nation's (UN) position that all people, regardless of origin, gender, age, disability and creed, have the right to a meaningful education. The UN and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) advocate education as a human right for all people.

Like all children, Deaf children must have access to equal and quality education. Deaf children have the right to expect that their needs and human, linguistic and educational rights are respected and supported by educational authorities, in full compliance with international policy statements, national legislation and national curricula. Deaf children are born with the same basic capacities for learning and language as all children; they can and should reach their full potential with appropriate, visual, quality educational programmes and support.

WFD advocates, promotes and safeguards educational rights for all Deaf people of all ages. The term ‘Deaf people’ includes a wide spectrum of people with hearing differences from moderate to profound, from various backgrounds, races, ages, creeds, ethnicities, and philosophies and with different levels of linguistic variables. Regardless of the age of the learner, there are some common denominators that must be considered in planning and implementing successful educational programmes for and with Deaf students. This specific paper will focus on the educational needs and rights of Deaf youth.

WFD embraces these following human rights and educational principles:
 Like all people, Deaf people have the right to full access to quality education.
 Deaf people are primarily visual beings, whose eyes are their portal to the world of information and knowledge. Thus, sign language and visual strategies must be made available to Deaf people as a birthright. (Deafblind people may predominantly depend on their tactile sense and have the right to learn sign language, Braille and mobility skills.)
 Education is in itself not a place or a goal, but a continuous, life-long process enabling one to acquire multiple skills needed to become an independent, educated, employed, self-actualising, participating and contributing citizen of one’s community and society.

Furthermore, WFD takes the position that to deny Deaf children access to
a quality education and their bill of rights is tantamount to child abuse.

The Current Situation

Studies by the WFD reveal that the enrolment rate and literacy achievement of Deaf children is far below the average for the population at large. Illiteracy and semi-literacy are serious problems among Deaf people. Without appropriate education, advancement in society as an independent, employed, contributing citizen becomes problematic. Without a strong educational and language base, it is difficult to succeed in today’s communities and marketplaces, and in the world of technology and information.

WFD takes the unequivocal position that there is no excuse for this deplorable situation, since Deaf children have the same innate intellectual, social and emotional capacities, as do all children.

Moreover, even in industrialised countries, the majority of current Deaf education programmes do not respect the linguistic human rights of Deaf children. Indeed, most Deaf education programmes fall into the language deprivation category described in theoretical models of education of linguistic minorities. “Language deprivation” for Deaf people means ignoring the use of sign language as a basic communication means, as a language of instruction and as a school subject. Following this, the linguistic human rights of Deaf children are grossly violated in educational programmes all over the world.

Current Research

There are several salient findings derived from research studies regarding educational development, language acquisition and Deaf children:

• Deaf students learn best through visual modalities and depend on sign language.

• The brain, without adequate stimulation during the critical learning years, ages 0-3, may atrophy as much as 30%. Due to insufficient family and community support during this critical time, Deaf children are needlessly stalled in language acquisition until they commence formal schooling.

• Deaf children of Deaf adults generally have a head start in language acquisition, communication development and educational prowess, and do well in later life as employees, citizens and leaders.

• Literacy and language does not equal speech and communication. Language development must precede everything else, speech development can occur later. Conversely, early speech development alone will not guarantee language and literacy skills.

• Sign language is a valid linguistic means of conveying thoughts, ideas and emotions. Hearing babies whose parents use sign language have a head start in communicating with their parents. Increasing numbers of hearing people study and utilise sign language annually.

• Programmes utilising bilingual or multilingual approaches, and employing qualified professionals, provide Deaf children with a strong language base, which equips them better for success in the broad range of educational subjects.

• Deaf children who are in school are often in programmes that do not meet their needs, educationally, socially or emotionally. These include oral programmes that exclude the Deaf learner’s right to visual access to education, professionals fluent in the sign language used by the Deaf community, and supportive, enriching and appropriate environments. Such programmes fail to meet the Deaf child’s needs and goals, and are detrimental to the Deaf child’s educational development, self-esteem and overall well-being.

• Early educational intervention, bilingual/multilingual programmes and qualified professionals and role models enable Deaf learners to achieve full intellectual, social and emotional development, and enable them to reach their full potential as human beings, in all aspects of life.

Linguistic Human Rights

The UN supports the rights of students from minority cultures, specifically the right to education in their mother tongue. This includes the right of Deaf children to the sign language of their country.

Linguistic human rights are an essential component of human rights, and central to language acquisition. Such language acquisition is required for full access to education.

WFD supports the right of Deaf children to acquire full mastery of their sign language as their 'mother tongue', as well as to learn the language(s) used by their family and community.

Deaf children must also have access to adult role models fluent in sign language.

The realisation of linguistic human rights is linked to the realisation of basic human rights to education, freedom of thought and expression, enjoyment of an adequate standard of living, protection from all forms of abuse, neglect and exploitation, and freedom from subjection to torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. It is the mastery of language(s) that enables a child to express her/his needs and desires, and gives him/her the tool to protect and to assert him/herself as a human being.

Inclusive Education

Many policy-makers today strongly support full inclusion in education, which they interpret to mean full-scale mainstreaming of all disabled students with all students in regular schools near their homes.

While such a goal may be generally appropriate for many disabled learners who can hear and interact with their peers and teachers, WFD has serious differences regarding implementation of this concept for Deaf learners.

WFD holds that the least restrictive environment for a Deaf learner is whatever is the most enabling environment for that learner. Full inclusion for a Deaf learner means a totally supportive, signing and student-centred environment. This permits the learner to develop to his/her full educational, social and emotional potential.

Otherwise, inclusion as a simple placement in a regular school without meaningful interaction with classmates and professionals at all times is tantamount to exclusion of the Deaf learner from education and society. In such environments, the Deaf child is physically present but may be mentally and socially absent.

Statement of Rights and Recommendations
To ensure that the educational rights of Deaf learners are fulfilled, WFD therefore:

 Reaffirms its position that all Deaf people, including Deaf children, have the right to full access to quality education through visual modes, including indigenous sign languages. This position is supported by several international conventions of the UN.

 Supports early identification of Deaf infants and youth, followed promptly with sign language environments and educational intervention strategies and programmes, in partnerships between families, Deaf adults and professionals.

 Calls upon governments to ensure full and equal access to and educational success for Deaf learners based on regular education goals, standards and curricula.

 States, furthermore, that such curricula should provide the opportunity for students to learn in and study both their local/national sign language and the local (written) language as academic subjects

 Calls upon national and regional/provincial governments to:

 Put into practice policies or guidelines regarding early identification of and intervention for Deaf children that maximise their visual capabilities and sign language.

 Legalise sign language and quality education for Deaf people of all ages.

 Provide the resources necessary for the development of effective programmes for teaching sign language and Deaf Studies (history, culture, etc.) to involved people, such as:
• Families of Deaf children
• Teachers of Deaf children, administrators and other professionals
• Professionals, including doctors and therapists, for preschool Deaf children
• Interested parties such as but not limited to community service providers, interpreters, and other students

 Provide support for programmes for Deaf people to receive training and become employed as teachers, educational professionals and members of educational teams.

 Establish high standards for quality education programmes and outcomes, from early childhood to professional education, for all Deaf people equal to that for all people; implement assessment and monitoring programmes to ensure that each learner makes appropriate progress.

 Ensure that Deaf learners who may be placed in mainstream educational settings have access to the services of educated, trained and qualified sign language interpreters, other needed support services, Deaf peers and role models, and full participation in both the educative and co-curricular processes.

 Support further research into:
• The development of strategies and valid instruments for teaching and assessing features in indigenous sign languages and the development of fluency in sign language.
• The benefits of acquiring an education using direct communication pedagogies, versus indirectly through a third-party interpreted